From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 1998 8:45 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai Dean Betts wrote: >Why don't you relax? Whatever do you mean? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 1998 7:37 AM Subject: Re: Talk.Religion.Dawnbreakers bahai@hotmail.com wrote in message <6dc94n$5v0$1@orthanc.reference.com>... >Since the priciple object to getting this group off the ground >appears to be the name, I am formally proposing a new group, in >the "big 8" heirarchy... > >PROPONENT: Carl Robertson (bahai@hotmail.com) Bahai@hotmail.com was the address from which four of my messages were reposted in October to bahai-discuss setting off a frenzy among Bahais, many of whom voted NO, while the BCCA in its infinite wisdom decided to ban me from all of its lists.... I doubt this is the person's real name.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: Toward the 3rd interest poll: talk.religion.bahai It's been suggested that the best thing for talk.religion.bahai would be if I had nothing to do with it. To me, that's not a serious suggestion.... I would, however, consider taking a less active and aggressive role, something like the other two proponents recent involvement, with more occasional words of support, if I could be sure that the individuals, Bahai or non-Bahai, were genuinely committed to getting the proposal passed.... -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 4:31 PM Subject: Re: Toward the 3rd interest poll: talk.religion.bahai Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34FB2709.DE3D8114@ford.com>... >The single best choice you can make with regard to getting trb passed >when you are next able to submit the proposal is to post absolutely >nothing to news.groups until the RFD gets here in six months. If I understand you correctly, I agree. Since the posting of the RESULT on February 22nd, there has been much fruitful discussion about it, in my opinion, trying to understand and interpret it. I have not wanted to cut that off before too early or before most people seem to feel it should end. Actually, I've been waiting for someone else to suggest the five day or so discussion period is over.... And I have been trying to prepare to move discussion as neatly as possible back to alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc.... I've wanted to make sure everyone feels they have had their say first.... Well, any last comments? -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 1998 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai Roger Reini wrote in message <34FC5C52.33CB@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu wrote: > >> I have posted several messages in the past and thought about voting yes, but >> the discussion seemed to always center around personal agenda's concerning >> TRB rather than the Baha'i Faith so I decided not to vote at all. >> >> Let's get on with the business of discussing the Baha'i Faith and when the >> time comes call for another vote. If this newsgroup actually starts to >> discuss the Baha'i Faith I just might vote for TRB. > >Just to clarify -- by "this newsgroup", he surely meant >alt.religion.bahai. > >The news.groups regulars may now breath a sigh of relief . > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) And maybe it's time to sign off on news.groups and head for alt.religion.bahai.... I suggest again that crossposting to talk.religion.misc would allow Bahais and non-Bahais interested in discussion to keep up with it.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 7:47 AM Subject: Re: A christian's response to bahai claims. bobak wrote in message <6de6ns$dv7@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... >What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. I believe there is some truth to this observation.... What do you make of the fact? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 7:58 AM Subject: Antinomy "...indicative of both the light of reunion and the fire of separation." --Baha'u'llah -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 8:16 AM Subject: Re: Toward the 3rd interest poll: talk.religion.bahai Emma Pease wrote in message ... > >He is learning and he is capable of learning more.[1] Note that we did >not have cross-postings this time to a multitude of newsgroups only >peripherally involved. He feels very heatedly about the issue as do >some of the opponents of the group (more so in the first vote) and >that sometimes leads to unfortunate results Mention might be made that roughly 600 Bahais have apparently learnt something about not only Usenet but free speech and conscience.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 8:53 AM Subject: Re: A christian's response to bahai claims. Maryam Butson wrote in message <34fd66cb.116013016@news.netlink.com.au>... >On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:47:53 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>bobak wrote in message <6de6ns$dv7@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... >> >>>What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >>>similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. >> >>I believe there is some truth to this observation.... >> >>What do you make of the fact? >> > >Actually I would like to rephrase the sentence. IMHO most Baha'is >from western backgrounds, have a basic grasp of *some* of the hetrodox >Shaykhi influences in Shi'ah Islam being the matrix from which the >Baha'i Faith sprung. (We all had the Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kazim >stories told to us from the abridged children's version of the Dawn >Breakers - didn't we?) Most would be quite surprised to the extent >however. I think they would find the original genesis quite alien. I >also think they would find Sunni Islamic theology also quiet alien if >studied in any depth. I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts quite well.... > >Regards >Maryam >maryamATnetlink.com.au > >"Luke, you're going to find that many of >the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >point of view." >- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi > > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): > **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; > **** / \ Allah will love you and > **** forgive you your sins. Allah > **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 9:00 AM Subject: Why didn't Bahais vote NO? Well, why didn't Bahais vote NO? I must say I was a little surprised that only 20 voted NO in comparison with the hord of roughly 600 who crushed talk.religion.bahai last spring.... Could Russ Allbery's passage advising Bahais to refrain from voting NO have had an impact? It was part of the RFD and may have helped educate people on Usenet voting practices. -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 1998 9:04 AM Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai Guy Macon wrote in message <6dleoc$r8p$8@news01.deltanet.com>... >In article <6dhphc$98h@news3.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: > >>And maybe it's time to sign off on news.groups and head >>for alt.religion.bahai.... > >Yes. It's time. Thanks for everything. Bye for now. And see you in August! Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Why didn't Bahais vote NO? Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <6dmdr8$45p@nntp02.primenet.com>... >In article <6dm7l0$f8i@news3.newsguy.com>, >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Well, why didn't Bahais vote NO? >> >>I must say I was a little surprised that only 20 voted NO in >>comparison with the hord of roughly 600 who crushed >>talk.religion.bahai last spring.... >> >>Could Russ Allbery's passage advising Bahais to refrain >>from voting NO have had an impact? It was part of the >>RFD and may have helped educate people on Usenet >>voting practices. > >I think it was the message from the House of Justice and the >efforts of many of the friends to educate others. I also >think it helped immensely that noone tried to solicit no >votes - I am sure many of the 600 in the first vote were a >direct result of that action unfortunately. I appreciate your saying so.... My interpretation of the RESULT is basically the same. I really do consider the diminished NO votes a minor victory for Bahais. Free speech and conscience are issues that will never disappear for human beings, let alone Bahais.... Though not Pollyanna, I find there might be some small reason to hope that in the long run Bahais might begin to honor the Writings on these matters.... >Next time you may want to consider concentrating on convincing >Baha'is using the Writings and the advice of the House. That >is what they will and did listen to, IMO. Good idea. Other than the UHJ passage in response to Roger, what Writings do you think would be especially helpful? >Dick D. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Email list connection to alt.religion.bahai I've found an email list site that ought to allow easy connection to alt.religion.bahai. After the first interest poll, some of you may remember this was an idea some people had but it was never succussfully implemented. This time the advance of Internet ought to help out. The link is https://208.141.98.157/ Suggestions for a name? -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 8:13 AM To: admin@coollist.com Subject: Creating a new list Wow! What an exciting new discover. I and other people on alt.religion.bahai have been wanting to create a mailing list for about a year now but have not known where to go. Because the alt.* hierarchy has low accessibility rates for many users who cannot access it from their ISPs, we would like to create an unmoderated mailing list and link it to alt.religion.bahai. Is that okay? Jonathan Grobe at group-mentors for Usenet has agreed to do whatever is necessary on the technical side to connect the automatic posting to and from alt.religion.bahai to the mailing list. Alt.religion.bahai has had over 6,000 messages posted to it since its formation last April. Let me know if this is all right with you. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Why didn't Bahais vote NO? I wrote: >Other than the UHJ passage in response to Roger, what >Writings do you think would be especially helpful? It occurs to me I might create a website with relevant passages from the Writings on free speech and conscience.... Ideas? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 1998 8:48 AM Subject: Re: A christian's response to bahai claims. Maryam Butson wrote in message <34fec19c.204811673@news.netlink.com.au>... >On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:53:51 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts quite >>well.... > >How? I mean..I know how I meant it. How do you read it? Gee, I'm kinda afraid to say.... What did you mean? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 9:24 AM Subject: Re: A christian's response to bahai claims. Maryam Butson wrote in message <35013885.82612715@news.netlink.com.au>... >Sorry...didn't mean to interrogate you. I meant it as "unfamiliar, or >not in accordance with popular conception". That definitely covers it.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 9:32 AM Subject: Re: Knowledge of good and evil Fran Baker wrote in message <6djrn1$drj$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... > >Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, >knowing good and evil." --Genesis 3:22 > >If this statement is taken either literally or figuratively, >it seems to imply that humans, per se, know right from wrong. >What do Baha'is make of this, if anything? Personally, I don't believe the average Bahai knows good from evil.... The popular reading of Abdu'l-Baha on the subject is hopelessly banal.... They seem to >have little faith in humanity without divine or divinely >ordained authority. Here you're on to a different subject that I shan't touch.... But, evil, that's something I have experienced.... Alas, more than once.... Like most alive and aware people.... (The answer that knowing what is good refers >to knowing that it is right to defer in ethical matters to one's >favorite self-declared divinely-ordained authority doesn't count!) > > >--Fran (who can't post to srb but can post to arb...go figure!) Can you expand on why you can't post to srb? Censorship or a technical reason? -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 08, 1998 9:36 AM To: Ron House Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65 Ron, Well, the vote's over but perhaps in August.... I'll be crossposting most messages of significance to talk.religion.misc so that you and others can stay informed and participate if you wish. By your crossposting back, people only on arb will still be able to receive your messages even though you can't access it. Looks like I just found a free mailing list I should shortly be able to connect arb to as well allowing a email echo for those who want to access it exculsively through that method. I'll let you know or watch for it on talk.religion.misc. Fred ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:39 AM Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com created A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been created: bahai-faith@coollist.com Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ The list should be able to be connected before long to alt.religion.bahai, which will allow many people who have not been able to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there as well as to post back to it. -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com created A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been created: bahai-faith@coollist.com Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ The list should be able to be connected before long to alt.religion.bahai, which will allow many people who have not been able to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there as well as to post back to it. -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 9:06 AM To: grobe+news@netins.net Subject: email list & alt.religion.bahai Jonathan, Last year after the first vote for talk.religion.bahai the possibility was discussed of connecting a mailing list to alt.religion.bahai so that people with only email access could follow the discussion. I was never able to find or create a mailing list. Recently, a new free mailing list service has come to my attention, and I've created bahai-faith@coollist.com Would you still be willing to connect this to alt.religion.bahai, if possible? It's really quite beyond my technical abilities.... Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ The list would allow many people who have not only been unable to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there but also to post back to it. I hope it will allow more people to stay in touch for the next interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in August and build and hold on to a larger consensus for it. Thanks, as always, for your help in the past.... -- Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 1998 9:18 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com created I've asked Jonathan Grobe to connect it to arb.... I'll keep you posted. Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com created >A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >created: bahai-faith@coollist.com > >Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ > >The list should be able to be connected before long to >alt.religion.bahai, which will allow many people who have not >been able to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion >there as well as to post back to it. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: Re: RESULT: talk.religion.bahai fails 109:65 Guy Macon wrote in message <6e0b1h$i9f$2@news01.deltanet.com>... >>Riley wrote: >>The counter theory is that the YES campaign posted to a number of >>soc.culture.* groups for predominately Moslem countries actually >>generated NO votes. > >That's a pretty good theory you have there! Out of 691, I would estimate only about 90 to 100 NO votes.... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Connecting bahai-faith@coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai Jonathan Grobe has suggested I ask for help on news.groups and elsewhere for connecting a new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith to alt.religion.bahai. Can anyone help do this? I have no idea what technically would be involved. Grobe wrote: >Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >one that I know is doing it generally. On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > Jonathan, > > Last year after the first vote for talk.religion.bahai the possibility > was discussed of connecting a mailing list to alt.religion.bahai > so that people with only email access could follow the discussion. > I was never able to find or create a mailing list. Recently, a new > free mailing list service has come to my attention, and I've created > bahai-faith@coollist.com > > Would you still be willing to connect this to alt.religion.bahai, if > possible? It's really quite beyond my technical abilities.... > > Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ > > The list would allow many people who have not only been unable > to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there but > also to post back to it. I hope it will allow more people to stay in > touch for the next interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in August > and build and hold on to a larger consensus for it. > > Thanks, as always, for your help in the past.... > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:41 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created Frederick Glaysher wrote: >A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >created: bahai-faith@coollist.com > >Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, group-mentor: >Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >one that I know is doing it generally. Anyone have the facilities and know-how? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:51 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com created Anyone out there receiving this? Jonathan Grobe, who offered after the first vote on talk.religion.bahai to connect an email list to alt.religion.bahai, informs me below that he does not presently have the facilities to do so.... Anyone know someone who might help connect to arb? Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 6:41 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >>created: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> >>Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ > >I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, >group-mentor: > >>Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >>software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >>on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >>news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >>The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >>coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >>one that I know is doing it generally. > >Anyone have the facilities and know-how? > >Frederick Glaysher > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:52 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: bahai-faith up & running..... This thing seems to be working.... I'm receiving messages at least.... Someone else send one if you would.... Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:53 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: coollist membership # 1 Josh6396@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:00 AM To: bahai faith coollist Cc: talisman Subject: Fw: Connecting bahai-faith@coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai I'm forwarding this message to coollist even though it's mostly redundant.... And cc-ing to talisman in case someone there has a helpful suggestion.... Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.misc,news.groups,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 6:29 AM Subject: Connecting bahai-faith@coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai >Jonathan Grobe has suggested I ask for help on news.groups >and elsewhere for connecting a new unmoderated mailing list on >the Bahai Faith to alt.religion.bahai. Can anyone help do this? > >I have no idea what technically would be involved. > >Grobe wrote: >>Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >>software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >>on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >>news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. > >>The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >>coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >>one that I know is doing it generally. > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Jonathan, >> >> Last year after the first vote for talk.religion.bahai the possibility >> was discussed of connecting a mailing list to alt.religion.bahai >> so that people with only email access could follow the discussion. >> I was never able to find or create a mailing list. Recently, a new >> free mailing list service has come to my attention, and I've created >> bahai-faith@coollist.com >> >> Would you still be willing to connect this to alt.religion.bahai, if >> possible? It's really quite beyond my technical abilities.... >> >> Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ >> >> The list would allow many people who have not only been unable >> to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there but >> also to post back to it. I hope it will allow more people to stay in >> touch for the next interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in August >> and build and hold on to a larger consensus for it. >> >> Thanks, as always, for your help in the past.... >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:05 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com created Can anyone offer any suggestions? -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com created >Anyone out there receiving this? Jonathan Grobe, >who offered after the first vote on talk.religion.bahai to >connect an email list to alt.religion.bahai, informs me >below that he does not presently have the facilities to >do so.... > >Anyone know someone who might help connect to >arb? > >Frederick Glaysher > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 6:41 AM >Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created > > >> >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >>>A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >>>created: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>> >>>Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ >> >>I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, >>group-mentor: >> >>>Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >>>software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >>>on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >>>news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >>>The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >>>coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >>>one that I know is doing it generally. >> >>Anyone have the facilities and know-how? >> >>Frederick Glaysher >> >> > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created I should mention that those people with only email capabilities should email me directly at FG@hotmail.com to subscribe to bahai-faith@coollist.com While I'm not a moderator, I can add people to the list who can not subscribe themselves through the www.coollist.com site. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:16 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created I should mention that those people with only email capabilities should email me directly at FG@hotmail.com to subscribe to bahai-faith@coollist.com While I'm not a moderator, I can add people to the list who can not subscribe themselves through the www.coollist.com site. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 2:05 PM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Fasting Whose translation of Rumi? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 3:40 PM To: admin@coollist.com Subject: Fw: Creating a new list: bahai-faith@coollist.com As it turns out, Jonathan Grobe has just informed me he really does have the facilities to connect a mailing list with a newsgroup. Is possible that coollist.com would be willing to set it up? Frederick Glaysher -----Original Message----- From: FG To: admin@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Creating a new list >Wow! What an exciting new discover. I and other people >on alt.religion.bahai have been wanting to create a mailing >list for about a year now but have not known where to go. > >Because the alt.* hierarchy has low accessibility rates for >many users who cannot access it from their ISPs, we >would like to create an unmoderated mailing list and >link it to alt.religion.bahai. > >Is that okay? Jonathan Grobe at group-mentors for Usenet >has agreed to do whatever is necessary on the technical >side to connect the automatic posting to and from >alt.religion.bahai to the mailing list. Alt.religion.bahai has >had over 6,000 messages posted to it since its formation >last April. > >Let me know if this is all right with you. > >Frederick Glaysher > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:28 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Forwarding I'll try to forward many or most messages from alt.religion.bahai until it's clear whether we'll be able to connect the two together or not.... If anyone has access to both, feel free to help. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:29 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings -----Original Message----- From: John Noland Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 8:19 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Hi Dale, > >Sorry to repost this. I am posting from a friend's account and I failed >to change the setup information to point to my e-mail account. > >If I may, I would like to chime in with a few thoughts. > >> Currently we have been discussing the relation of Science to Religion. >> That is not what he >>says at all. He specifically furthers his case for the symbolic >>interpretation for the Resurrection by explaining that, like the >>Ascension, it is irrationally impossible according to what has been >>"proved" by science. It is specifically an argument against the >>"possibility" of literal interpretation. >> >>Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions; >> >>"...this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to >>the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics." >> >>"beyond these explanations (for taking the Resurrection and Ascension >>of Christ as being only symbolic)it hath been proved by science that >space >is a limitless void..." > >These quotes as stated do a fine job of furthering your argument. The >problem is they are taken somewhat out of context. The book you refer to >"Some Answered Questions" was compiled by Laura Clifford Barney for her >personal study. Later when it was decided that this work would be published, >it was also decided to arrange the discussion roughly by subject. This >re-arrangement combined with the fact that Abdu'l Baha was teaching at a >very simple level makes this a great text to give to "seekers". It also >leads a person who decides to give it deep study to misunderstandings. >Since the original discussions were not given in the same order as they >appear in the text, the reader can miss previous assumptions or specific >lines of thought that need to be known. In this case, Abdu'l Baha was >discussing the views of theologians and materialists in discussions leading >up this topic. Materialists say this or that can't be so since it >contradicts science. Abdu'l Baha was >NOT giving any sort of authority to these views. The second quote above, >which is actually a slight but significant misquote, says "beside these >arguments..." not beyond (as quoted above) and not besides (as you've quoted >it in other posts). This means that in addition to these things, the >materialists have scientific proof that the physical sky above is not the >spiritual heaven. The only significance of this is that in Jesus time, it >would not have been considered a stretch to point to the sky when referring >to "spiritual" heaven. He later goes on to say > >" But when the truth of subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, >science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the >intelligence affirm it." > >In other words, the materialists arguments against this interpretation don't >hold up. Whereas, their arguments very much APPEAR to hold water against the >'literal' Resurrection. Any Baha'i that proposes that the literal >Resurrection did not occur because it is contrary to science is misinformed. >May I suggest reading "He Cometh with Clouds" by Gary L. Matthews for a more >succint view of Baha'i beliefs with respect to the Bible. > >If you would like to discuss these matters further, feel free to contact me. > >Thank you, >John > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:29 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: Knowledge of good and evil -----Original Message----- From: whateverman Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Knowledge of good and evil >Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, >> knowing good and evil." --Genesis 3:22 >> >> If this statement is taken either literally or figuratively, >> it seems to imply that humans, per se, know right from wrong. >> What do Baha'is make of this, if anything? They seem to >> have little faith in humanity without divine or divinely >> ordained authority. > >You seem to want an answer from active Baha'is, but I'll give you one >from a non-practicing Baha'i: > >Give me a hypothetical situation, or show me an example, and I can point >out the good and evil aspects of it. > >That's a purely emotive answer, but i think it's accurate in a sense. >Good and evil are not easily defined in linguistic terms; I think >there's a component of instinct that's involved in identification. Put >me into a situation, and I'll be able to "feel" it. > >Granted, I'm not willing to run around putting little Good and Evil >stickers on everything; in fact, I think the terms are over-used, which >adds to this cautious approach. Though I rarely use the terms in >reference to daily life (ie. the terms good and bad {no capitals}, or >positive and negative are more appropriate), I think I can easily spot >the presence of "goodness" or its twin... > >-- >whateverman at erols.com > >"When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to >set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do >not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set >forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion >are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is >the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction." >--Bertrand Russell ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:30 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: Martyrdom of the Bab (was Re: Dale Grider ...) -----Original Message----- From: Graham Sorenson Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 3:06 AM Subject: Re: Martyrdom of the Bab (was Re: Dale Grider ...) >In article <6e523m$f2h@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, Ellen Russo > writes >>On Mon, 02 Mar 1998 13:17:30 -0800, Donald Zhang Osborn >> wrote: >> >>>jftaber@ficta.org wrote: >>>[snip] >>>Consider... >>>> you have 750 men firing upon one point. Some of them may have had misgivings >>>> and missed the target purposely. Perhaps when the bullets were approaching >>>> their target some of them crossed paths and ricocheted away. Who the heck >>>> knows?! Look at it statistically. What are the odds such a thing could have >>>> happened. Pretty darn small, eh? But.... *could* it have happened? >>> >>>Just a minor point touched on in a thread on the Martyrdom of the Bab >>>last July. The firearms of the time (1850) were not nearly as accurate >>>as what we have today, so even if all the soldiers in the regiment >>>somehow decided to avert their aim from the Bab (or towards the rope), >>>there would still not be much chance that He could have escaped >>>absolutely unscratched. These events were documented by outside >>>observers, as was the fact that when the second regimental firing squad >>>did their duty, the Bab's face was untouched. >>> >>>Also of interest is the fate of that second regiment a few years >>>afterward. None of this is to hinge belief on apparent miracles, but >>>to confirm the extraordinary events of that fateful day (9 July, 1850). >>> >>>DZO >> >>Probably most of the people who were instructed to shoot him, felt >>that they didn't want to be the one who really shot the Prophet of God >>(if he was the One, they thought), so they all mis-aimed. God works >>in great ways! >>Sarah >>https://www.maitreya.org > >Probably you did not read the message that told of the fact that the >accuracy of the muskets of the time was not accurate at all, and the >fact that the Babs ropes were shot away? Surely when 500 men fire in >your direction the inaccuracy would not allow just the ropes to be shot >away? And when the second regiment did finally shoot the Bab that His >face was not touched by the bullets. ???? > >Strange to think that the average regimental soldier was good enough to >be accurate enough to shoot the ropes away when history proves that the >soldiers of that time were lucky to hit the target at all, even in >normal training situations, nevermind the emotionally charged event of >an execution. > > > > > >-- >Graham Sorenson ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: RFD: Talk.Religion.iranian -----Original Message----- From: bahai@NoSPAM-1680.hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups,soc.culture.iranian Date: Monday, March 09, 1998 6:35 PM Subject: Re: RFD: Talk.Religion.iranian >How about a shift of focus, such as talk.religion.iranian? It could >cover Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and Baha'is? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Posted using Reference.COM https://WWW.Reference.COM > FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >On 9 Mar 1998 23:35:25 GMT, bahai@NoSPAM-1680.hotmail.com wrote: > >>How about a shift of focus, such as talk.religion.iranian? It could >>cover Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and Baha'is? >> > >It should also include bixodAi. Then I second that. > > >Hallaj > >bahai@NoSPAM-1680.hotmail.com wrote: > >> How about a shift of focus, such as talk.religion.iranian? It could >> cover Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and Baha'is? > >This is a better-named proposal, but IMHO it is still a bad idea. I >feel it would be a breeding ground for contention and strife, for >ruinous flame wars, for behavior that would not reflect well upon any of >the faiths or their adherents. > >In fact, it would be a subset of talk.religion.misc. It'd probably end >up duplicating t.r.m as well. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)How about a shift of focus, such as talk.religion.iranian? It could >cover Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and Baha'is? > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Posted using Reference.COM https://WWW.Reference.COM > FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >bahai@NoSPAM-1680.hotmail.com wrote: >> How about a shift of focus, such as talk.religion.iranian? It could >> cover Zoroastrians, Shi'ites and Baha'is? > >Carl (assuming that is your real name), Thanks for contributing the >idea, but it seems to be another nonstarter. There are several >problems with it, IMHO. First, it gives the erroneous impression >that the Zoroastrian faith, the Shi'a branch of Islam, and the Baha'i >faith are "Iranian religions." As you know, all are international >(although Zoroastrian religion was primarily associated with Iran and >areas ruled by it in antiquity) -- especially the Baha'i faith, which >is the second most widespread religion in the world. > >Second, as Roger suggested, it wouldn't be significantly different >from talk.religion.misc. > >On the other hand, if you wanted a group to discuss religion in Iran >-- Shi'a Islam, the Baha'i faith, Sunni Islam, Christianity, Judaism, >and the Zoroastrian faith -- then it would probably best be in another >hierarchy, e.g., soc.culture.iranian.religion. Let me hasten to add >that I am not suggesting such a group (although there is precedent in >soc.culture.pakistan.religion), and suggest that any possible initiative >for such a group should not come from outside soc.culture.iranian >regulars (of which neither you [presumably] nor I are one). > >Perhaps it is best to leave this matter be. There may be another poll >on talk.religion.bahai in 6 months or so. In the meantime, I think we >can give the folks on news.groups a break. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:36 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: Fw: Why didn't Bahais vote NO? -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, March 05, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Why didn't Bahais vote NO? >Well, why didn't Bahais vote NO? > >I must say I was a little surprised that only 20 voted NO in >comparison with the hord of roughly 600 who crushed >talk.religion.bahai last spring.... > >Could Russ Allbery's passage advising Bahais to refrain >from voting NO have had an impact? It was part of the >RFD and may have helped educate people on Usenet >voting practices. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > > >In article <6dm7l0$f8i@news3.newsguy.com>, >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Well, why didn't Bahais vote NO? >> >>I must say I was a little surprised that only 20 voted NO in >>comparison with the hord of roughly 600 who crushed >>talk.religion.bahai last spring.... >> >>Could Russ Allbery's passage advising Bahais to refrain >>from voting NO have had an impact? It was part of the >>RFD and may have helped educate people on Usenet >>voting practices. > >I think it was the message from the House of Justice and the >efforts of many of the friends to educate others. I also >think it helped immensely that noone tried to solicit no >votes - I am sure many of the 600 in the first vote were a >direct result of that action unfortunately. > >Next time you may want to consider concentrating on convincing >Baha'is using the Writings and the advice of the House. That >is what they will and did listen to, IMO. > >Dick D. >Richard C. Detweiler wrote in message <6dmdr8$45p@nntp02.primenet.com>... >>In article <6dm7l0$f8i@news3.newsguy.com>, >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>>Well, why didn't Bahais vote NO? >>> >>>I must say I was a little surprised that only 20 voted NO in >>>comparison with the hord of roughly 600 who crushed >>>talk.religion.bahai last spring.... >>> >>>Could Russ Allbery's passage advising Bahais to refrain >>>from voting NO have had an impact? It was part of the >>>RFD and may have helped educate people on Usenet >>>voting practices. >> >>I think it was the message from the House of Justice and the >>efforts of many of the friends to educate others. I also >>think it helped immensely that noone tried to solicit no >>votes - I am sure many of the 600 in the first vote were a >>direct result of that action unfortunately. > >I appreciate your saying so.... My interpretation of the RESULT >is basically the same. I really do consider the diminished NO >votes a minor victory for Bahais. Free speech and conscience >are issues that will never disappear for human beings, let alone >Bahais.... Though not Pollyanna, I find there might be some >small reason to hope that in the long run Bahais might begin >to honor the Writings on these matters.... > >>Next time you may want to consider concentrating on convincing >>Baha'is using the Writings and the advice of the House. That >>is what they will and did listen to, IMO. > >Good idea. Other than the UHJ passage in response to Roger, what >Writings do you think would be especially helpful? > >>Dick D. > >Frederick Glaysher > > >I wrote: > >>Other than the UHJ passage in response to Roger, what >>Writings do you think would be especially helpful? > >It occurs to me I might create a website with relevant passages >from the Writings on free speech and conscience.... > >Ideas? > >Frederick Glaysher > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:45 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: coollist members # 2 DaveCrnll@aol.com Josh6396@aol.com billh@samoatelco.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@PDI-CORP.com owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:47 AM To: bahai faith coollist Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com members There are now nine members on bahai-faith@coollist. Should we create some rules? Do we need any? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:09 AM To: support@coollist.com Subject: Connecting alt.religion.bahai & bahai-faith@coollist.com Is it possible to connect a newsgroup with a newly created list on coollist.com? So that all messages posted to either one automatically goes out on each of them? I've heard of this being done. Many people who want access to the unmoderated alt.religion.bahai cannot get it because there ISPs don't carry the alt.* hierarchy at all. For the past year, I and others have tried twice to pass a proposal to create talk.religion.bahai so that anyone interested in the Bahai Faith could discuss it on an unmoderated forum. Many people feel soc.religion.bahai is heavily censored. An "email echo" through a mailing list would help create the online community needed to discuss and pass a proposal for talk.religion.bahai on Usenet, a higher order hierarchy that would then be accessible by most people. The first vote was a year ago and failed 157 YES to 691 NO; the second vote has just failed 109 YES to 65 NO. We are hoping it will pass on the third vote in August and hope coollist.com can help us build a community of interest. Please let me know as soon as possible. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:14 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com Should there be something like rules? Although apparently I'm the "owner" of the list, I don't really consider myself as such.... I will not be dropping or refusing anyone access to it. First, most people can subscribe themselves. I will subscribe manually anyone who cannot. The list is set up as an unmoderated one so that I do not see the messages that go out on it. They all automatically are posted. There are now nine members subscribed. If you're posting to alt.religion.bahai, consider cc-ing to bahai-faith@coollist.com so that people there with only email capablities can follow the discussion. Until the two fora are connected, I'll try to crosspost manually most if not all messages. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:20 AM To: talisman Cc: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com Any suggestions from people on talisman would be appreciated.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Should there be something like rules? > >Although apparently I'm the "owner" of the list, I don't really >consider myself as such.... I will not be dropping or refusing anyone >access to it. First, most people can subscribe themselves. I will >subscribe manually anyone who cannot. The list is set up as an >unmoderated one so that I do not see the messages that go out >on it. They all automatically are posted. There are now nine >members subscribed. > >If you're posting to alt.religion.bahai, consider cc-ing to >bahai-faith@coollist.com so that people there with only email >capablities can follow the discussion. Until the two fora are >connected, I'll try to crosspost manually most if not all messages. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:22 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: A christian's response to bahai claims. -----Original Message----- From: bobak Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: Re: A christian's response to bahai claims. >What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. It is no coincidence that the first >three leaders of the faith are father, son, grandson, similar to the >Shiites' belief that the divine message was carried by the male >descendants of Fatima, the prophet's daughter. Also among other Muslim >denominations it was Shiites who strongly believed in the coming of the >messiah "the last Imam." > >On 2 Mar 1998 11:55:40 GMT, "bobak" wrote: > >>What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >>similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. It is no coincidence that the first >>three leaders of the faith are father, son, grandson, similar to the >>Shiites' belief that the divine message was carried by the male >>descendants of Fatima, the prophet's daughter. Also among other Muslim >>denominations it was Shiites who strongly believed in the coming of the >>messiah "the last Imam." > >I would not agree with your statement that Western Baha'is are unaware >that the Faith arose from the Shi'a community. It's fairly common >knowledge among the believers, in my experience. From your tone, I >take it you find something objectionable about the Shi'a. > >By the way, your statement about "father, son, grandson" is not quite >correct. While 'Abdu'l-Baha was appointed Center of the Covenant by >His father, Baha'u'llah, it was the great-grandson of Baha'u'llah (and >grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha), Shoghi Effendi, who was appointed Guardian. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/bobak wrote in message <6de6ns$dv7@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... > >>What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >>similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. > >I believe there is some truth to this observation.... > >What do you make of the fact? > >Frederick Glaysher > > > > >On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:47:53 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>bobak wrote in message <6de6ns$dv7@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... >> >>>What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >>>similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. >> >>I believe there is some truth to this observation.... >> >>What do you make of the fact? >> > >Actually I would like to rephrase the sentence. IMHO most Baha'is >from western backgrounds, have a basic grasp of *some* of the hetrodox >Shaykhi influences in Shi'ah Islam being the matrix from which the >Baha'i Faith sprung. (We all had the Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kazim >stories told to us from the abridged children's version of the Dawn >Breakers - didn't we?) Most would be quite surprised to the extent >however. I think they would find the original genesis quite alien. I >also think they would find Sunni Islamic theology also quiet alien if >studied in any depth. > >Regards >Maryam >maryamATnetlink.com.au > >"Luke, you're going to find that many of >the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >point of view." >- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi > > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): > **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; > **** / \ Allah will love you and > **** forgive you your sins. Allah > **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. >Maryam Butson wrote in message <34fd66cb.116013016@news.netlink.com.au>... >>On Wed, 4 Mar 1998 06:47:53 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" >> wrote: >> >>>bobak wrote in message <6de6ns$dv7@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>... >>> >>>>What most Western faithful of Bahaism do not realize is the link and >>>>similarity between Bahaism and Shiism. >>> >>>I believe there is some truth to this observation.... >>> >>>What do you make of the fact? >>> >> >>Actually I would like to rephrase the sentence. IMHO most Baha'is >>from western backgrounds, have a basic grasp of *some* of the hetrodox >>Shaykhi influences in Shi'ah Islam being the matrix from which the >>Baha'i Faith sprung. (We all had the Shaykh Ahmad and Siyyid Kazim >>stories told to us from the abridged children's version of the Dawn >>Breakers - didn't we?) Most would be quite surprised to the extent >>however. I think they would find the original genesis quite alien. I >>also think they would find Sunni Islamic theology also quiet alien if >>studied in any depth. > >I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts quite >well.... > >> >>Regards >>Maryam >>maryamATnetlink.com.au >> >>"Luke, you're going to find that many of >>the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >>point of view." >>- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi >> >> ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. >> **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): >> **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; >> **** / \ Allah will love you and >> **** forgive you your sins. Allah >> **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) >> ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > > >On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:53:51 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts quite >>well.... > >How? I mean..I know how I meant it. How do you read it? > >Regards >Maryam >maryamATnetlink.com.au > >"Luke, you're going to find that many of >the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >point of view." >- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi > > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): > **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; > **** / \ Allah will love you and > **** forgive you your sins. Allah > **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. >Maryam Butson wrote in message <34fec19c.204811673@news.netlink.com.au>... >>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998 07:53:51 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" >> wrote: >> >>>I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts >quite >>>well.... >> >>How? I mean..I know how I meant it. How do you read it? > > >Gee, I'm kinda afraid to say.... What did you mean? > >Frederick Glaysher > > > >>>>I like your choice of the word "alien." I think it fits both contexts >>quite >>>>well.... >>> >>>How? I mean..I know how I meant it. How do you read it? >> >> >>Gee, I'm kinda afraid to say.... What did you mean? >> > >Sorry...didn't mean to interrogate you. I meant it as "unfamiliar, or >not in accordance with popular conception". > >Regards >Maryam >maryamATnetlink.com.au > >"Luke, you're going to find that many of >the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >point of view." >- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi > > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): > **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; > **** / \ Allah will love you and > **** forgive you your sins. Allah > **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > >Maryam Butson wrote in message <35013885.82612715@news.netlink.com.au>... > >>Sorry...didn't mean to interrogate you. I meant it as "unfamiliar, or >>not in accordance with popular conception". > > >That definitely covers it.... > >Frederick Glaysher > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:27 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Toward the 3rd interest poll: talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, March 02, 1998 6:49 AM Subject: Toward the 3rd interest poll: talk.religion.bahai >It's been suggested that the best thing for talk.religion.bahai >would be if I had nothing to do with it. To me, that's not a serious >suggestion.... > >I would, however, consider taking a less active and >aggressive role, something like the other two proponents >recent involvement, with more occasional words of support, >if I could be sure that the individuals, Bahai or non-Bahai, >were genuinely committed to getting the proposal passed.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > > >Kathy Pascoe wrote in message <34FB2709.DE3D8114@ford.com>... > >>The single best choice you can make with regard to getting trb passed >>when you are next able to submit the proposal is to post absolutely >>nothing to news.groups until the RFD gets here in six months. > >If I understand you correctly, I agree. Since the posting of the RESULT >on February 22nd, there has been much fruitful discussion about it, >in my opinion, trying to understand and interpret it. I have not wanted >to cut that off before too early or before most people seem to feel it >should end. > >Actually, I've been waiting for someone else to suggest the five day >or so discussion period is over.... And I have been trying to prepare >to move discussion as neatly as possible back to alt.religion.bahai >and talk.religion.misc.... > >I've wanted to make sure everyone feels they have had their say >first.... > >Well, any last comments? > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > > >Emma Pease wrote in message ... >> >>He is learning and he is capable of learning more.[1] Note that we did >>not have cross-postings this time to a multitude of newsgroups only >>peripherally involved. He feels very heatedly about the issue as do >>some of the opponents of the group (more so in the first vote) and >>that sometimes leads to unfortunate results > >Mention might be made that roughly 600 Bahais have apparently >learnt something about not only Usenet but free speech and >conscience.... > >Frederick Glaysher > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 9:55 AM To: admin@coollist.com Subject: Fw: Connecting alt.religion.bahai & bahai-faith@coollist.com It occurs to me that I should probably have sent this to admin@coollist.com. Sorry. -----Original Message----- From: FG To: support@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:09 AM Subject: Connecting alt.religion.bahai & bahai-faith@coollist.com >Is it possible to connect a newsgroup with a newly created list >on coollist.com? So that all messages posted to either one >automatically goes out on each of them? > >I've heard of this being done. Many people who want access to >the unmoderated alt.religion.bahai cannot get it because there >ISPs don't carry the alt.* hierarchy at all. > >For the past year, I and others have tried twice to pass a >proposal to create talk.religion.bahai so that anyone interested >in the Bahai Faith could discuss it on an unmoderated forum. >Many people feel soc.religion.bahai is heavily censored. > >An "email echo" through a mailing list would help create the >online community needed to discuss and pass a proposal for >talk.religion.bahai on Usenet, a higher order hierarchy that would >then be accessible by most people. The first vote was a year >ago and failed 157 YES to 691 NO; the second vote has just >failed 109 YES to 65 NO. We are hoping it will pass on the >third vote in August and hope coollist.com can help us build a >community of interest. > >Please let me know as soon as possible. > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:16 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups Date: Saturday, February 28, 1998 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai > >Dave Ratcliffe wrote in message <34fb961f.451416538@news.microserve.net>... > >>The vote is over. Your proposal failed. Votes cannot, and _should_ not_, be >>disqualified because of past posting history, motivation to vote , hair >>color, religion or propensity to belch after a large meal. > >I agree the vote is over. I accepted the RESULT and haven't really >attempted to challenged it. I have looked closely at the NO votes >because I think I and other proponents and people interested in >maintaining a fair system on Usenet might learn something from >it. > >I for one am extremely surprised that only 20 Bahais voted NO. >That's real progress due to my and others' efforts.... I am also >surprised that so many people voted at all who really have no >interested whatsoever in the subject or proposal--just for the >hell of it, apparently.... These are observations worth making >in preparation for the next vote.... > >I'm also surprised that so few people came back--or, I >should say, since I believe it, lost touch as a result of SRB's >banning all discussion and other Bahai efforts to limit >discussion about the interest poll. > >> >>Just how long are you going to keep this up? > >You're phrasing baffles me a little. Keep what up? I believe >learning from the RESULT by giving it a close reading is >valuable. That's all. Such a reading doesn't say much in my >opinion for the effectiveness of Usenet interest polling. And >again it's that broad perspective that I'm trying to share with >you and other techies.... > >>-- >>Dave Ratcliffe >>dave@frackit.com > >Frederick Glaysher > > >Roger Reini wrote in message <34FC5C52.33CB@SPAMBLOCKford.com>... >>rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu wrote: >> >>> I have posted several messages in the past and thought about voting yes, >but >>> the discussion seemed to always center around personal agenda's >concerning >>> TRB rather than the Baha'i Faith so I decided not to vote at all. >>> >>> Let's get on with the business of discussing the Baha'i Faith and when >the >>> time comes call for another vote. If this newsgroup actually starts to >>> discuss the Baha'i Faith I just might vote for TRB. >> >>Just to clarify -- by "this newsgroup", he surely meant >>alt.religion.bahai. >> >>The news.groups regulars may now breath a sigh of relief . >> >>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > >And maybe it's time to sign off on news.groups and head >for alt.religion.bahai.... > >I suggest again that crossposting to talk.religion.misc would allow >Bahais and non-Bahais interested in discussion to keep up with it.... > >Frederick Glaysher > > >Guy Macon wrote in message <6dleoc$r8p$8@news01.deltanet.com>... >>In article <6dhphc$98h@news3.newsguy.com>, FG@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>>And maybe it's time to sign off on news.groups and head >>>for alt.religion.bahai.... >> >>Yes. It's time. > > >Thanks for everything. > >Bye for now. And see you in August! > >Frederick Glaysher > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 10:20 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Cc: bahai-faith at coollist.com Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:20 AM Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Any suggestions from people on talisman would be >appreciated.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:14 AM >Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com > > >>Should there be something like rules? >> >>Although apparently I'm the "owner" of the list, I don't really >>consider myself as such.... I will not be dropping or refusing anyone >>access to it. First, most people can subscribe themselves. I will >>subscribe manually anyone who cannot. The list is set up as an >>unmoderated one so that I do not see the messages that go out >>on it. They all automatically are posted. There are now nine >>members subscribed. >> >>If you're posting to alt.religion.bahai, consider cc-ing to >>bahai-faith@coollist.com so that people there with only email >>capablities can follow the discussion. Until the two fora are >>connected, I'll try to crosspost manually most if not all messages. >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:30 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 6:18 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >I think the part that disturbs me the most about this forwarded series of >messages is the antagonism evident in the postings about alt.religion.baha'i. >I never have understood why there must be such a confrontational attitude >towards those who wish for a non-moderated environment within which to discuss >different aspects of the faith? >Nancy If I'm reading you correctly above, you're saying antagonism on the part of Bahais against anyone who would like an unmoderated forum, right? You see, to my mind, if that's what you're saying, you're quite right.... Why the extreme resistance to an unmoderated forum? An entire year of it.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:34 AM Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com: 10 subscribers and growing.... Should the membership list be posted for subscribers as is done periodically on many other mailing lists? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:35 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 8:58 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Dear John, > Let me consider for a momn=ent that you are correct. We will assume >that Abdul Baha does not refute the literal Resurrection on the grounds >of its impossibility. Let us assume that he simply says it didn't happen >that way but well might have, even as the virgin birth did happen >literally, beyond scintific acceptability (geuine "literal" supernatural >miracle). > My point is still valid John. As the Virgin birth is given its literal >intention as expressed in the Gospel, there then becomes NO grounds for >going so far around those same literal intentions with respect to the >Gospel's (and the rest of the NT's) story regarding Christ's >Resurrection. In fact John, the Bible is FAR more specific and definate >in its intentions that the Resurrection be taken literally than the >virgin birth. As you most likely recall, even the one passage from >Luke's Gospel makes the Baha'i symbolic interpretation of the >Resurrection an impossible one. (I am speaking now from the perspective >you yourself argue. That is, 1) Miracles ARE possible and Abdul Baha >never said they weren't. and 2) Contextual consideration is of paramount >importance, with the Bible passages as much as Baha'i writings to be >sure.) Let me again refresh your memory; > >Luke 24:36, > “While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among >them and said to them, ‘Peace be with you.’ They were startled and >frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, ‘Why are you >troubled and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and >feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and >bones as you see I have.’ > When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while >they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked >them, ‘Do you have anything to eat?’ They gave Him a piece of broiled >fish and He took it and ate it in their presence.” > > Clearly the Gospel and very words of Christ, (spoken after the >crucifixion), intend for us to believe that Christ literally rose from >the dead, in the flesh, (and bones). > > If you wish to argue that Abdul Baha, in Some Answered Questions, does >NOT argue the necesity of symbolizing the Resurrection on scientific >grounds, then you have to go even further in ignoring the intentions of >the Scriptures which, in context, unquestionably portray Jesus as >LITERALLY raised with "flesh and bones" though obviously in some >"glorified" sense that we cannot comprehend. > > I tend to disagree with your rationale. I believe it seems obvious that >Abdul's line of reason is that one would be naive in the extreme to >accept the Resurrection literally because it goes against "Science" and >reason (according to what he seems to be saying). But if you are >correct, then far more revealingly you strip him (and Baha'i theology) >of ANY rationale by which the Resurrection should be considered >symbolic. Within the context of accepting the Virgin birth, one cannot >decide that the Resurrection "must" be symbolized simply because it >doesn't seem "reasonable" according to worldly understanding (science or >intellect). And it ALSO cuts glaringly against the Bible's clear >intentions to do so (again according to any honest consideration of >context and intention). > >The context argument works both ways John. And in this case (if you are >correct) it builds a stronger case AGAINST reinterpreting the >Resurrection symbolically. What reasonable rationale would you present >that would explain why the Resurrection is symbolic, while the virgin >birth is not? Given your own line of argument I would submit to you that >you have none that isn't either simply arbitrary, or guilty of a double >standard in "context" of Baha'i acceptance of other genuine and literal >miracles. > >In Christ, >Dale >:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:57 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: members 10 DaveCrnll@aol.com Harris632@aol.com Josh6396@aol.com LaAeterna@aol.com billh@samoatelco.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@PDI-CORP.com owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <"HBOLc.A.ZDE.5eEB1"@bounty>... >Evidence concerning whether we are in fact in the "Baha'i era" or >for that matter a "post-Christian era" in any sense: number of books >published about four religious founders since 1844, according to >the WorldCat bibliographic database. The totals are >Jesus Christ 73,373; Muhammad 18,874; Buddha 7365; Baha'u'llah >309. One might respond to what extent are they polemical? Do all of the religions have a review process? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:26 AM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <"lxgao.A.qCE.LeEB1"@bounty>... >Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >over 1400, and is now under 1200. Are these figures accurate? Can anyone confirm both of them? [clip] >Sobering statistics: increase in the memberships of various world >religions between Baha'u'llah's time and the present: > >Christians: ca. 1 billion >Muslims: ca. 350 million >Hindus: ca. 300 million >Buddhists: ca. 200 million >Baha'is: ca. 6 million Can you expand on the nature of these numbers? Births or true growth? And sources? >I note this not to claim Christian triumphalism but to point out >that 150 years into the "Baha'i era" none of the other world >religions seems to be yielding an inch of ground. Explain, please.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:31 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: Connecting bahai-faith@coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai May be hitting another snag.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.admin.misc,news.groups,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, March 10, 1998 6:29 AM Subject: Connecting bahai-faith@coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai >Jonathan Grobe has suggested I ask for help on news.groups >and elsewhere for connecting a new unmoderated mailing list on >the Bahai Faith to alt.religion.bahai. Can anyone help do this? > >I have no idea what technically would be involved. > >Grobe wrote: >>Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >>software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >>on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >>news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. > >>The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >>coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >>one that I know is doing it generally. > > >On Mon, 9 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Jonathan, >> >> Last year after the first vote for talk.religion.bahai the possibility >> was discussed of connecting a mailing list to alt.religion.bahai >> so that people with only email access could follow the discussion. >> I was never able to find or create a mailing list. Recently, a new >> free mailing list service has come to my attention, and I've created >> bahai-faith@coollist.com >> >> Would you still be willing to connect this to alt.religion.bahai, if >> possible? It's really quite beyond my technical abilities.... >> >> Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ >> >> The list would allow many people who have not only been unable >> to access the alt.* hierarchy to read the discussion there but >> also to post back to it. I hope it will allow more people to stay in >> touch for the next interest poll on talk.religion.bahai in August >> and build and hold on to a larger consensus for it. >> >> Thanks, as always, for your help in the past.... >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:32 AM To: Ron House Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com created FYI i.e., don't ask us for any help........ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:58 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created >Dear Fred, >I've posted your previous 2 messages about your new email list and felt >that was pushing it a bit about it but I have to draw the line here. This >is not a newsgroup for soliciting technical support. > >Good luck with your new list, I wish that sincerely. > >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> >A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >> >created: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> > >> >Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ >> >> I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, >> group-mentor: >> >> >Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >> >software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >> >on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >> >news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >> >The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >> >coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >> >one that I know is doing it generally. >> >> Anyone have the facilities and know-how? >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:03 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai In terms of antagonism, we might consider this partial list of NO voters. I've deleted those who are techies or whatever and kept only those who are Bahais or those who voted NO in both interest polls. How do you explain such antagonism? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people B = Bahai; 20 people SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com. techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology or technical subject matter BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and Communications Assn's bahai-discuss number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com Voted No --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.caAndrew Pemberton-Pigott BCCA B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy 4 hits B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell 8 hits B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon 1 hit B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier BCCA X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson BCCA X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis 1 hit B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. HymanSRB moderator? BCCA X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor Pagan X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook 1 hit X kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn 0 hits X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas 0 hits X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith techy X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDULynne Seamans techy ---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson 0 hits B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi 3 hits X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber techy X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers 0 hits B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill 2 hits X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti techy B persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits X petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook 0 hits X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler SRB X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.eduJoseph KhouryBCCA secretary, 0 hits B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth BCCA SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley Bahai? techy B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman SRB moderator? X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri 0 hits X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown non-Bahai? X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner Christian? B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte 6 hits X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches 0 hits Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >I think the part that disturbs me the most about this forwarded series of >messages is the antagonism evident in the postings about alt.religion.baha'i. >I never have understood why there must be such a confrontational attitude >towards those who wish for a non-moderated environment within which to discuss >different aspects of the faith? >Nancy ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:05 AM To: talisman Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai In terms of antagonism, we might consider this partial list of NO voters. I've deleted those who are techies or whatever and kept only those who are Bahais or those who voted NO in both interest polls. How do you explain such antagonism? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- X = voted NO on 1st & 2nd vote for talk.religion.bahai; 26 people B = Bahai; 20 people SRB = messages all or primarily to soc.religion.bahai ---- = not a single hit on dejanews.com. techy indicates interests appear to be in computer technology or technical subject matter BCCA = frequent poster to the Bahai Computers and Communications Assn's bahai-discuss number with hits = number of messages to Usenet on dejanews.com Voted No --------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- X,B abir [at] comtrol.com Abir Majid X,B andrew.pemberton-pigott [at] ualberta.caAndrew Pemberton-Pigott BCCA B barneyk [at] ziplink.net Michael "Barney" Kennedy 4 hits B,SRB bobbymitchell [at] totacc.com Bobby Mitchell 8 hits B,SRB EdvardJ [at] simi.is Edvard T. Jonsson B,SRB fdbetts [at] mindspring.com Dean Betts X,B Gata [at] aol.com Shirley Macias X globe99 [at] Mlink.NET Derrick Jobidon 1 hit B gpoirier [at] acca.nmsu.edu G. Brent Poirier BCCA X,B Graham [at] fragrant.demon.co.uk Graham Sorenson BCCA X hcwtcurtis [at] email.msn.com Larry D. Curtis 1 hit B hymanfam [at] samoatelco.com William M. HymanSRB moderator? BCCA X,B iskandar [at] acsu.buffalo.edu Iskandar Hai X jasmine [at] fl.net.au Jasmine Taylor Pagan X judd.rook [at] pnn.com Judd A Rook 1 hit X kimdv [at] best.com Kim DeVaughn 0 hits X,---- krc1 [at] mail.enter.net Phil Thomas 0 hits X,B ksm8p [at] avery.med.virginia.edu kavian milani X lcs [at] zk3.dec.com Larry Smith techy X LSEAMANS [at] MU3.MILLERSV.EDULynne Seamans techy ---- marcus9 [at] usa.net Marcus Davidson 0 hits B,SRB mehyar22 [at] siol.net Mehyar Badii-Azandahi 3 hits X,B momen [at] northill.demon.co.uk Moojan Momen X naddy [at] mips.rhein-neckar.de Christian Weisgerber techy X nightbrd [at] humboldt1.com Douglas Myers 0 hits B, SRB ongang [at] mail.indigo.ie Ann O'Neill 2 hits X patl [at] cag.lcs.mit.edu Patrick J. LoPresti techy B persia [at] persia.com Robert Moldenhauer BCCA, 0 hits X petcook [at] total.net Peter Cook 0 hits X,B pewatler [at] cyf-kr.edu.pl Miguel Watler SRB X,---- ph289jk [at] prism.gatech.eduJoseph KhouryBCCA secretary, 0 hits B roger.borseth [at] mci2000.com Roger Borseth BCCA SRB rossdee [at] ramhb.co.nz Ross Deeley Bahai? techy B samoasys [at] samoatelco.com Jane C. Hyman SRB moderator? X shohre [at] itis.com Shohre Mansouri 0 hits X stainles [at] bga.com Dwight Brown non-Bahai? X steiners [at] primenet.com Jason Steiner Christian? B,SRB Sunday122 [at] aol.com Sunday Marie Witte 6 hits X tlawson [at] amug.org Todd C. Lawson Sandra-Bullock fan X,---- todd.kutches [at] attws.com Todd Kutches 0 hits Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >I think the part that disturbs me the most about this forwarded series of >messages is the antagonism evident in the postings about alt.religion.baha'i. >I never have understood why there must be such a confrontational attitude >towards those who wish for a non-moderated environment within which to discuss >different aspects of the faith? >Nancy ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 12, 1998 9:12 AM To: h-bahai Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com A new unmoderated mailing list has been created. Efforts are being made to connect it to alt.religion.bahai. If anyone might have the technical ability to lend a helping hand, it would be greatly appreciated.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:04 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: members 4 DaveCrnll@aol.com Harris632@aol.com Josh6396@aol.com LaAeterna@aol.com billh@samoatelco.com dbikman@bwc.org druidarab@yahoo.com druidarab@yahoo.com fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@PDI-CORP.com jeffery.decker@usa.net jeffery.decker@usa.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com tommycarter@usa.net You have a total of: 17 users. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:10 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: NO voter's list: LaAeterna comment -----Original Message----- From: Semler, Gretchen To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: Re: NO voter's list: LaAeterna comment >>I never have understood why there must be such a confrontational attitude >>towards those who wish for a non-moderated environment within which to >discuss >>different aspects of the faith? >>Nancy > >Nancy, I understand your viewpoint, as I share it. Unfortunately, as >with anything else people feel strongly about, some will inevitably find >that the very idea of discussing other opinions about something they >"know" is "true" causes great anger. Humans, in our fragile physical >bodies, are various degrees of strong in willpower not to flame others >or try to block others. Ditto the acceptance ability. It can be >learned, but many don't see it as needful. > >I would not worry. Nothing can stop those who wish to discuss ideas >with others. I ran across a quote the other day, while visiting a site, >that had to do with Baha'u'llah (spell?) saying something along the >lines of truth shining through only after the clash of differing >opinions. (I don't think I remember the whole quote, so I'm just >writing that much.) This is the theory but the practice is often different.... However, roughly 600 Bahais changed from voting NO on the interest poll for talk.religion.bahai to simply staying out of it and not scuttling it through another massive NO vote.... That's progress, I do believe.... > >Many other faiths have this same problem. Indeed, more and bitterer >wars were begun from a difference of opinion over religion than from any >other reason, through the history of mankind. We've a sad history, but >as long as there's a core (from all over the world) that keeps striving >to become "more," there will always be hope for all. I hope you're right. I have my doubts about human kind.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:15 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Baha'i teachings Fw to alt.religion.bahai -----Original Message----- From: DaveCrnll To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:13 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Baha'i teachings >>Within the context of accepting the Virgin birth, one cannot >>decide that the Resurrection "must" be symbolized simply because it >>doesn't seem "reasonable" according to worldly understanding (science or >>intellect). > >Hopefully these two verses shed some light on whether or not the resurrection >is symbolic: > > An evil and adulterous generation seeks for > a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except > the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was > three days and three nights in the belly of the > whale, so will the Son of man be three days > and three nights in the heart of the earth. > [Jesus, Matthew 12:39-40] > >Three days and three nights add up to 72 hours. > >It is well-known that Jesus was crucified and taken off the cross on Friday >evening (Good Friday). On Sunday morning the two Mary's found the tomb empty. >If we count the time between Friday evening (6:00 pm) to Sunday morning (6:00 >am), you get 36 hours. This is only HALF the time prophesied by Jesus. Even if >we just count the days and nights, we only get 2 nights and 1 day. > >These facts make the clear point that Jesus' physical body is not what the >resurrection is about since it doesn't fulfill the ONE sign that Jesus gave >corrupt Jewish clergy. > >So whatever arguments are put forth about the resurrection, it always comes >down to 72 hours. Hope this helps. > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:21 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha Thank you for your message of Bahai love and tolerance.... May I repost this to alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com? I am sure many would benefit from your example.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 1:07 PM Subject: Re: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai > Date sent: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:05:27 -0500 > How do you explain such antagonism? Might part of it have something to do with the same objections that non-Baha'is on Usenet had to many of your "t.r.b." messages, which were characterized by: * undercutting of the attempts that your cosponsors were making to legitimize the "pro-t.r.b." effort, * weak/inconsistent presentation of positive arguments for t.r.b., * excessive paranoia and hostility, * frequent lack of objectivity, * a willingness to twist people's words and jump to ridiculously wild and irrational conclusions in order to impugn many of the people that have expressed objections to your arguments. Your posting of the "no" list in connection of the above question is quite offensive, and seems to be a bald revenge tactic. I think a lot of people are wondering if you have become mired in an unending cycle of conflict, and are dependent on a false sense of powerlessness and victimization. For those who have dared to voice dissent over their experience of the onerous weight of perfectionistic posturing, fundamentalism and their child: the culture of administrative abuse in the community, maintaining a sense of integrity requires *consistent* criticism of all forms of unethical behavior and speech, including the manner in which you have highjacked the need for openness and criticism, and used it to grind old axes, nurse personal grudges and provide comfort to those who would maintain a dysfunctional mindset and engage in high drama rather than legitimately expore new and innovative approaches to bringing about progressive change in the community. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:34 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com: 10 subscribers and growing.... Robert A. Little wrote in message <6ea5fg$cnn$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >no Why not? Other lists do it. I suppose so that everyone knows who they're talking to.... Or who's listening in.... > > >Robert A. Little > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6e8h6d$e7j@news1.newsguy.com>... >>Should the membership list be posted for subscribers as is done >>periodically on many other mailing lists? >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:38 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher I would hope more constructive conversation could now take place, given the recent choice of roughly 600 Bahais not to squelch the possibility of free speech and conscience.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message <6e9him$v9s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >make them available to folks on the net. > >The first book called "Holy Utterances" is a compilation of Fred's >anti-Iranian posts. It will be refered to as UTTER for short. > >The second book called "Certain Other Writings" is a compilation >of Fred's other writings, such as the long persecution of Mark >Towfiq and his conspiracy theories(tm). It will be refered to as >COW for short. > >Stay tuned for some very enlightening posts. > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:41 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher Thank you, Roger, for your words here.... I, for one, shall not be dredging up old words out of context now.... I ask for others to refrain as well. Let's find a more constructive path toward the 3rd interest poll for talk.religion.bahai.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) Roger Reini wrote in message <350848C4.AA066E7@wwnet.net>... >bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >> make them available to folks on the net. > >I would urge you NOT to do this. For I fear that nothing good can come >of it. > >I've followed this discussion for the better part of a year and a half. >I know what was said by whom, and so do many of the participants. >Dredging up these old comments will not contribute anything useful. >Indeed, it's more likely that old wounds would be reopened. Ask >yourself if 'Abdu'l-Baha would consider doing what you are proposing. > >Let the past belong to the past. Peace. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai I am not an enemy. I am a Bahai.... Show us all that you too are one.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message <6e9gr2$ujn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Oh wow, an enemy's list, this is just like the Nixon days! > >I'm just sorry I didn't get on your list... You may subscribe, as may anyone who wishes. See my signature for details. > >In article <6e8mea$fqd@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:46 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Knowledge of good and evil I can't remember forwarding this thread. Sorry if it's redundant. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Fran Baker Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, March 04, 1998 10:24 AM Subject: Knowledge of good and evil > >Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, >knowing good and evil." --Genesis 3:22 > >If this statement is taken either literally or figuratively, >it seems to imply that humans, per se, know right from wrong. >What do Baha'is make of this, if anything? They seem to >have little faith in humanity without divine or divinely >ordained authority. (The answer that knowing what is good refers >to knowing that it is right to defer in ethical matters to one's >favorite self-declared divinely-ordained authority doesn't count!) > > >--Fran (who can't post to srb but can post to arb...go figure!) >Fran Baker wrote in message <6djrn1$drj$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... >> >>Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, >>knowing good and evil." --Genesis 3:22 >> >>If this statement is taken either literally or figuratively, >>it seems to imply that humans, per se, know right from wrong. >>What do Baha'is make of this, if anything? > >Personally, I don't believe the average Bahai knows good from evil.... >The popular reading of Abdu'l-Baha on the subject is hopelessly >banal.... > >They seem to >>have little faith in humanity without divine or divinely >>ordained authority. > >Here you're on to a different subject that I shan't touch.... But, >evil, that's something I have experienced.... Alas, more than >once.... Like most alive and aware people.... > >(The answer that knowing what is good refers >>to knowing that it is right to defer in ethical matters to one's >>favorite self-declared divinely-ordained authority doesn't count!) >> >> >>--Fran (who can't post to srb but can post to arb...go figure!) > >Can you expand on why you can't post to srb? Censorship or >a technical reason? > >-- >Frederick Glaysher > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Fran Baker wrote in message <6djrn1$drj$1@chaos.crhc.uiuc.edu>... >> >--Fran (who can't post to srb but can post to arb...go figure!) >> >> Can you expand on why you can't post to srb? Censorship or >> a technical reason? > >There shouldn't be a technical reason, for she can mail submissions to > if her news server's not properly configured to >handle srb. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net)Fran Baker wrote: >> >> Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, >> knowing good and evil." --Genesis 3:22 >> >> If this statement is taken either literally or figuratively, >> it seems to imply that humans, per se, know right from wrong. >> What do Baha'is make of this, if anything? They seem to >> have little faith in humanity without divine or divinely >> ordained authority. > >You seem to want an answer from active Baha'is, but I'll give you one >from a non-practicing Baha'i: > >Give me a hypothetical situation, or show me an example, and I can point >out the good and evil aspects of it. > >That's a purely emotive answer, but i think it's accurate in a sense. >Good and evil are not easily defined in linguistic terms; I think >there's a component of instinct that's involved in identification. Put >me into a situation, and I'll be able to "feel" it. > >Granted, I'm not willing to run around putting little Good and Evil >stickers on everything; in fact, I think the terms are over-used, which >adds to this cautious approach. Though I rarely use the terms in >reference to daily life (ie. the terms good and bad {no capitals}, or >positive and negative are more appropriate), I think I can easily spot >the presence of "goodness" or its twin... > >-- >whateverman at erols.com > >"When there are rational grounds for an opinion, people are content to >set them forth and wait for them to operate. In such cases, people do >not hold their opinions with passion; they hold them calmly, and set >forth their reasons quietly. The opinions that are held with passion >are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is >the measure of the holder's lack of rational conviction." >--Bertrand Russell ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:01 AM To: Teri Rhan Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created I understand your point, I suppose.... I was just hoping SRB would be willing to lend a helping hand in what appears to me to be a new environment of possibile toleration for freedom of speech and conscience.... I would hope a less confrontational approach could now be developed on both sides, helping people of all persuasions to move forward a little.... Might I reword this message to some extent and see if a talented Bahai or reader of SRB might not have the technical ability to help? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Wednesday, March 11, 1998 12:58 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com created >Dear Fred, >I've posted your previous 2 messages about your new email list and felt >that was pushing it a bit about it but I have to draw the line here. This >is not a newsgroup for soliciting technical support. > >Good luck with your new list, I wish that sincerely. > >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> >A new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith has been >> >created: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> > >> >Those interested can subscribe to it at https://208.141.98.157/ >> >> I've received the following reply from Jonathan Grobe, >> group-mentor: >> >> >Sorry I don't have the facilities to do this. You need some special >> >software running on a host (for example mail2news). Ask your ISP, >> >on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, on news.groups and >> >news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ Albury for advice. >> >The bit.* hierarchy coordinator used to do this but the current >> >coordinator will only do it for faculty/staff at American University. No >> >one that I know is doing it generally. >> >> Anyone have the facilities and know-how? >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:07 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:06 AM Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >I would hope more constructive conversation could now take place, >given the recent choice of roughly 600 Bahais not to squelch the >possibility of free speech and conscience.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > >bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message ><6e9him$v9s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >>make them available to folks on the net. >> >>The first book called "Holy Utterances" is a compilation of Fred's >>anti-Iranian posts. It will be refered to as UTTER for short. >> >>The second book called "Certain Other Writings" is a compilation >>of Fred's other writings, such as the long persecution of Mark >>Towfiq and his conspiracy theories(tm). It will be refered to as >>COW for short. >> >>Stay tuned for some very enlightening posts. >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:07 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:07 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >I am not an enemy. I am a Bahai.... Show us all that you too >are one.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > >bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message ><6e9gr2$ujn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Oh wow, an enemy's list, this is just like the Nixon days! >> >>I'm just sorry I didn't get on your list... > >You may subscribe, as may anyone who wishes. See my >signature for details. > >> >>In article <6e8mea$fqd@news1.newsguy.com>, >> "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:08 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: bahai-faith@coollist.com: 10 subscribers and growing.... FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com: 10 subscribers and growing.... >Robert A. Little wrote in message <6ea5fg$cnn$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>no > >Why not? Other lists do it. I suppose so that everyone knows who >they're talking to.... Or who's listening in.... > >> >> >>Robert A. Little >> >>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6e8h6d$e7j@news1.newsguy.com>... >>>Should the membership list be posted for subscribers as is done >>>periodically on many other mailing lists? >>> >>>-- >>>Frederick Glaysher >>>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >>> >>> >> >> > > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:09 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >Thank you, Roger, for your words here.... I, for one, shall not be >dredging up old words out of context now.... I ask for others to >refrain as well. Let's find a more constructive path toward the >3rd interest poll for talk.religion.bahai.... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > >Roger Reini wrote in message <350848C4.AA066E7@wwnet.net>... >>bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote: >>> >>> We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >>> make them available to folks on the net. >> >>I would urge you NOT to do this. For I fear that nothing good can come >>of it. >> >>I've followed this discussion for the better part of a year and a half. >>I know what was said by whom, and so do many of the participants. >>Dredging up these old comments will not contribute anything useful. >>Indeed, it's more likely that old wounds would be reopened. Ask >>yourself if 'Abdu'l-Baha would consider doing what you are proposing. >> >>Let the past belong to the past. Peace. >> >>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) > > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 7:45 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: members 16 billh@samoatelco.com davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com laaeterna@aol.com mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@aracha.net.au tommycarter@usa.net Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 7:49 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: 'Treatise on Leadership' pt. 9 Perhaps I've missed it, but is a full copy of the "Treatise on Leadership" yet available on Juan Cole's website or elsewhere? I've only had time to read snippets here and there.... And piecing it all together would be little taxing.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 7:57 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Fw: Knowledge of good and evil My apologies to Fran. I'm the author of that observation, not quite accurately quoted, I might say. I was referring to Bahais' understanding of Abdu'l-Baha's writings as hopelessly banal, not his writings per se.... Significant difference.... Apparently in forwarding who said what was lost.... -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 6:49 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Knowledge of good and evil >Fran Baker states she doubts whether Baha'is can tell good from evil...and >that Abdul Baha's writings on the subject are "hopelessly banal..." I infer >from her statements that she hopes to find the answer for what is supposedly >good and what is evil within a human's own conscience? Alas, we all think we can easily do so.... Human nature, is it not? >But then she quotes from the Bible--this reinforces my impression that the >very concept of good vs evil is not one which she can trace back to someone >who had an apple fall on his/her head, so to speak (to borrow shamelessly from >a Newtonian myth :) The discussion of morality has been pretty much >originated by the Manifestations and has evolved from "Know thyself" (and then >forget thyself, hopefully!) to the Golden Rule, to "do unto others.." and >finally: "treat others BETTER than you might treat yourself..." difficult >concepts, perhaps banal to someone not inclined to self sacrifice, but >definitely appealing to many, for they lay a foundation of behavioral >standards which when followed increase the possibility of a peaceful world. The Greeks and Romans extensively discussed morality without the mainline Manifestations.... Historical fact, I do believe. The Bahai writings acknowledge such to be the case, in my opinion.... >Nancy -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 7:59 AM Subject: Fwd Re: Wars, etc. -----Original Message----- From: Semler, Gretchen To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Wars, etc. >G. S. wrote: >>>We've a sad history, but >>>as long as there's a core (from all over the world) that keeps striving >>>to become "more," there will always be hope for all. >F. G. wrote: >>I hope you're right. I have my doubts about human kind.... > > >I see it as inevitable that some will always strive for the best. Many >will ride on the coattails of those few, but some of those coattail >riders will arise to take up the fight of those who fall. I see it as a >continuation of man's evolution. This is not to say that there aren't >more of the other sort, who don't see a future, and thus don't work for >the betterment of themselves or anyone else; far from it! I just see >that the efforts of a few can far outstrip the efforts of so many to >pull us down. We are, after all, (most people think) God's creation! > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:25 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha Tolerance? Never heard of it in the Bahai Faith? For starters, you might try: https://www.pagecreator.com/~newsroom/page12.html -----Original Message----- From: JoySafari To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:07 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha >My apologies, but I have only been a Baha'i a little over 10 years. What are >Baha'is supposed to tolerate?????? (see below sentence about Baha'i tolerance) > >This is a very serious question. > >With lots of adventurous Justice and not a lot of Tolerance, >Marcella to the list.) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:29 AM To: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) Subject: Re: Request for enrollment You raise legitimate questions of concern, all of which were extensively discussed there the appropriate time for trb. We shall surely have to revisit such topics. I have added your friend to the list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: fglaysh@hotmail.com Cc: Star Saffa Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 8:19 PM Subject: Request for enrollment >Dear Fred: >I have no antagonism towards you for what you are trying to do. I noticed >that I am on your "voted no" list for trb. I have subscribed to >bahai-faith@coollist.com in order to determine for myself whether it will >become a CB magnet. My observations will help me to decide how I will vote >next time. I did check out alt.religion.bahai in the archives and felt that >there was greater depth in srb, but that is to be expected as there is a >larger readership. > >The proposed charter for trb was almost identical to srb, with the major >difference being that it would be unmoderated. As I expect you know, Baha'is >have been advised not to engage with discussions with CBs. Please explain >how flaming or CB content can be controlled without moderators. > >My friend Star* Saffa would like to enroll on your coollist, but was not >able to. Please enroll her. Her address is starjo@arach.net.au. > >Many thanks, Bill > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:36 AM To: aelyria@goodnet.com Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha -----Original Message----- From: aelyria@goodnet.com To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 2:11 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha >Hey Frederick, Enough is enough. And you are posting way to much to lists >where I think you are not on. I now ask you to cease this. You are in my >opinion only antagonizing those who might support you should there be a >third try at establishing a talk.religion.bahai. I am a subscriber to every list I am posting to.... Please feel free to express yourself more clearly.... In public on whatever forum you refer to.... I would appreciate not privately emailing me again with this kind of message.... I would be happy to discuss such things in public. > >Alma who did vote yes the second time. > >P.S. Did you know that hotmail is owned by Microsoft? > > > >>Thank you for your message of Bahai love and tolerance.... >> >>May I repost this to alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com? >> >>I am sure many would benefit from your example.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Eric D. Pierce >>To: talisman@umich.edu >>Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 1:07 PM >>Subject: Re: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha >> >> >>> From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>> To: "talisman" >>> Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >>> Date sent: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:05:27 -0500 >> >>> How do you explain such antagonism? >> >>Might part of it have something to do with the same objections that >>non-Baha'is on Usenet had to many of your "t.r.b." messages, which >>were characterized by: >> >>* undercutting of the attempts that your cosponsors were making >> to legitimize the "pro-t.r.b." effort, >> >>* weak/inconsistent presentation of positive arguments for t.r.b., >> >>* excessive paranoia and hostility, >> >>* frequent lack of objectivity, >> >>* a willingness to twist people's words and jump to ridiculously >> wild and irrational conclusions in order to impugn many of the >> people that have expressed objections to your arguments. >> >>Your posting of the "no" list in connection of the above question is >>quite offensive, and seems to be a bald revenge tactic. >> >>I think a lot of people are wondering if you have become mired in an >>unending cycle of conflict, and are dependent on a false sense of >>powerlessness and victimization. >> >>For those who have dared to voice dissent over their experience of >>the onerous weight of perfectionistic posturing, fundamentalism and >>their child: the culture of administrative abuse in the community, >>maintaining a sense of integrity requires *consistent* criticism of >>all forms of unethical behavior and speech, including the manner in >>which you have highjacked the need for openness and criticism, and >>used it to grind old axes, nurse personal grudges and provide comfort >>to those who would maintain a dysfunctional mindset and engage in >>high drama rather than legitimately expore new and innovative >>approaches to bringing about progressive change in the community. >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> >> > > To tread the path of Love Alma Engels > Is no mere game. aelyria@goodnet.com > For only one thirinel@msn.com > Out of many thousands > Can persevere in His Love. (Tahirih) > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 8:57 AM Subject: Propagation of the Bahai Message In an attempt to reach a wider online readership, Bahai and non-Bahai, with the Message of Baha'u'llah, I have created a new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith: bahai-faith@coollist.com It is my hope that this will serve as a vehicle for discussion of the Teachings and a further deepening of understanding for all participants. In only a few days, there have been nearly twenty people subscribe to it. God willing, I'm sure the number will continue to grow. In an effort to expand its readership, efforts are being made to connect bahai-faith@coollist.com with alt.religion.bahai, which would allow more people to come together to discuss the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. In the new atmosphere of tolerance and respect for the Bahai Teachings on freedom of conscience, and the guidance of the Universal House of Justice, I would think all Bahais would eagerly support such a forum and endeavor. In this regard, Jonathan Grobe, a group-mentor for Usenet has emailed me that >You need some special software running on a host (for example >mail2news). Ask your ISP, on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, >on news.groups and news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ >Albury for advice. Might I also ask my fellow Bahais? Especially those who have the technical ability requisite for the job? Any suggestions or friendly neighborly help from "cyber-Bahais" would be greatly appreciated. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:01 AM To: talisman Subject: Propagation of the Bahai Message In an attempt to reach a wider online readership, Bahai and non-Bahai, with the Message of Baha'u'llah, I have created a new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith: bahai-faith@coollist.com It is my hope that this will serve as a vehicle for discussion of the Teachings and a further deepening of understanding for all participants. In only a few days, there have been nearly twenty people subscribe to it. God willing, I'm sure the number will continue to grow. In an effort to expand its readership, efforts are being made to connect bahai-faith@coollist.com with alt.religion.bahai, which would allow more people to come together to discuss the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. In the new atmosphere of tolerance and respect for the Bahai Teachings on freedom of conscience, and the guidance of the Universal House of Justice, I would think all Bahais would eagerly support such a forum and endeavor. In this regard, Jonathan Grobe, a group-mentor for Usenet has emailed me that >You need some special software running on a host (for example >mail2news). Ask your ISP, on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, >on news.groups and news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ >Albury for advice. Might I also ask my fellow Bahais? Especially those who have the technical ability requisite for the job? Any suggestions or friendly neighborly help from "cyber-Bahais" would be greatly appreciated. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:02 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Propagation of Bahai Message In an attempt to reach a wider online readership, Bahai and non-Bahai, with the Message of Baha'u'llah, I have created a new unmoderated mailing list on the Bahai Faith: bahai-faith@coollist.com It is my hope that this will serve as a vehicle for discussion of the Teachings and a further deepening of understanding for all participants. In only a few days, there have been nearly twenty people subscribe to it. God willing, I'm sure the number will continue to grow. In an effort to expand its readership, efforts are being made to connect bahai-faith@coollist.com with alt.religion.bahai, which would allow more people to come together to discuss the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. In the new atmosphere of tolerance and respect for the Bahai Teachings on freedom of conscience, and the guidance of the Universal House of Justice, I would think all Bahais would eagerly support such a forum and endeavor. In this regard, Jonathan Grobe, a group-mentor for Usenet has emailed me that >You need some special software running on a host (for example >mail2news). Ask your ISP, on the mailing list, on alt.religion.bahai, >on news.groups and news.admin.misc. You might also ask Russ >Albury for advice. Might I also ask my fellow Bahais? Especially those who have the technical ability requisite for the job? Any suggestions or friendly neighborly help from "cyber-Bahais" would be greatly appreciated. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com: 10 subscribers and growing.... TK wrote in message <6ebp73$sas@drn.newsguy.com>... >In article <6ebcs7$264@news1.newsguy.com>, "Frederick says... >> >>Robert A. Little wrote in message <6ea5fg$cnn$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>>no >> >>Why not? Other lists do it. I suppose so that everyone knows who >>they're talking to.... Or who's listening in.... > >*Some* other lists do it. And just because some other lists do it doesn't make >it a good idea. For the majority of people reading alt.religion.bahai, those >messages will be just so much noise, as most readers have full access already. >I for one don't care about reading information on how people are accessing the >newsgroup. I bring this up only because I'm aware that talisman does periodically post such a list. As a subscriber there, I appreciate it since it helps me know who I'm talking to--that's all. > >If you want to send information like this, send email to the subscribers >directly, and only if they want it. It would be much more appropriate to send >out occasional messages on arb advertising the mailing list for people who >cannot post to it. Okay, I think I follow you. Makes sense. No list to arb--only to bahai-faith@coollist.com And I'll only post one there if most people seem to want it.... > >TK Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings Fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 3:30 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Responding to rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) https://extra.newsguy.com > > >Roger says that, > > >"This discussion about the exact nature of the Resurrection is missing >the point, IMHO. Whatever the disciples experienced when they had the >vision of the resurrected Jesus falls into the category of miracle. >And as 'Abdu'l-Baha taught, miracles are of importance only for the >people who see them or experience them." > > >I will agree that the "point" is being missed. But not at all in the >manner that Roger suggests. As Roger reminds us, Baha'i doctrine tells >us that any literal miracles that might have occured are insignifigant >in terms of their having been "literal" and only signifigant in whatever >"spiritual" (which equates in Baha'i parlance to "symbolic") sense God >might have intended them to benefit us. > A little common sense and logic reveals, however, that this is simply >not the case when we consider the implications of whether Christ's >Resurrection was a literal, or non literal one. This is especially so >because, beyond the Resurrection, Baha'u'llah claims to represent >Christ's "return", and the nature of Christ's Resurrection bears >directly upon how we must consider His return. ANYONE's faith will be >crititcally affected by the recognition of the consequences of these >implications, not just those who may have been present at the time of >the miracle. > I support this with the observation that the "point" that is really >being missed here lies NOT in the fact that Scripture proclaims the >physical/literal aspect of Jesus' Resurrection, in and of itself. It >lies in the fact that such a literal/ physical Resurrection of Christ >establishes the literally PERSONAL aspect of that Resurrection. That, >Roger, is what we are really speaking of. That is why the issue of this >particular "miracle" that Baha'i doctrine so arbitrarily dismisses as >symbolic, is a vital and fundamental issue. This, Roger, is a "miracle", >literal in Scriptural intention, that carries implications concerning >His return universally important to everyone, not just to those who >might have been present when it happened. Such a literally personal >Resurrection carries with it unacceptable associated implications for >Baha'i theology concerning Jesus' promised return that the Virgin birth >does not threaten with. Thereby we see the necesity for Baha'i theology >to attempt to selectively rationalize the Resurrection away, even though >it creates a double standard in the "literal" Baha'i acceptance of >other miracles. The "person" of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was said to >have been LITERALLY raised from the dead, and (and this is the point ) >He (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) is promised to return, literally as the >same "person". > When we consider how Christ commands us to reject "anyone" who claims >His return (Matthew 24:26), and how at the Ascension, those watching >were told that "this SAME Jesus" would return (Acts 1:11), we find the >true reason why Baha'i doctrine must symbolize away the Resurrection to >survive in its own antiScriptural religious ideology, while >simultaneously being quite willing to accept other miracles "literally". >Baha'i theology MUST say that Jesus didn't "really" rise literally from >the grave so that the way is cleared for Baha'u'llah to be reasonably >viewed as representing an equally "symbolic" second coming of Christ. >Christ's true and LITERAL Resurrection as portrayed in Scripture carries >with it the automatic PERSONAL nature, not only of that Resurrection, >but, more signifigantly with respect to our present discussion, of His >return to set up an eternal Kingdom, PERSONALLY. Roger gets stuck on >emphasizing the insignifigance of a "physical" aspect to Christ's >Resurrection and in so doing, it is he who misses the point. For it is >by way of emphasizing the literal/physical reality of Jesus' >Ressurection that the singular PERSONAL reality of it signifigantly >precludes anyone but Christ Himself, PERSONALLY, from claiming His >promised return. Many claim to be Christ's return, not just Baha'u'llah. >Christ's Words of warning against impostors who would come claiming to >be that return take on particular signifigance as we realize, first and >foremost, that His literal PERSONAL Resurrection from the dead assumes >an eqally personal return. Baha'u'llah is NOT the return of the >"personally" risen Christ who also is promised to "personally" return. >As His Rising from the dead was personal, so too must be His return. For >considering that he is "personally" risen and has promised to return as, >"This same Jesus" one must wonder, if the "person" of Baha'u'llah comes >claiming that return, where He (the true risen "person" of Christ) must >be? One envisions Him looking on in irritation as some impostor >arrogantly presumes to take His place before the true time when He >Himself will certainly come to "personally" keep His promise. That's the >point and it is intensely emphasized beyond any doubt in Scripture's >intended Message. Baha'i doctrine would discount the "person" of Christ >as insignifigant with only the "reflection" of God that shown through >Him as being important. Scripture disagrees and EMPHASIZES that the >person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth was singularly essential, His being, >"in very nature", God incarnate, God the Son (Phillipians 2:5). In >Scripture there is no difference between the person of Christ and the >Light of God because He IS God. Thus we see that the literal/ physical >Resurrection is most importantly the literal/PERSONAL Ressurection, >assuming logically a personal return impossible for Baha'u'llah (or >anyone but Jesus Christ of Nazareth Himself) to fulfill. > > Acts 1:11, > >"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the >sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come >back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." > >In Christ, >Dale:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings Fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 7:42 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Dale, > >The issue of literal only or symbolic only, as I have said before is >pointless. Christ's real power is the power to transform individuals into >loving, kind, and caring people. Individuals who develop a personal >relationship with Christ are changed forever for the better. > > >> >> Again, consider Acts 1:11, >> >> "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the >> sky? <<>>, who has been taken from you into heaven, >> will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." >> >> In Christ, >> Dale >> > >You are obviously a man of the Gospels. Being such I am sure you are familiar >with the expectations of the Jews concerning the Messiah. They were expecting >a return before the appearance of the Messiah. The return of none less that >Elias himself. Many would not believe the claims of Christ because this >return had not occured. They expected physical return. > >If we look to the Gospels of Matthew and John [Matt Ch11, Matt Ch17, and John >Ch1] we will find that Christ explains this return to His Apostles. He >explains this return in a symbolic manner through John the Baptist. > >I mention this, not as proof that literal interpretation is not valid, but as >evidence that symbolic explanation of scripture is equally as valid. Valid >enough for Christ Himself to use. > > >In regards to your selected Bible verse It is very similar to Matt. Ch24:30, >that all the tribes of earth will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of >heaven with great power.This is one of the verses that Baha'u'llah Himself >refers to in His Book of Certitude pp. 24-25 and 66-74. I will not bore you >with the content and if you are interested I am sure you can find a copy of >this book to read. > >I feel that any serious attempt to study the Gospels, especially Acts which >many believe to be written by Luke, requires one to become detached from the >idea that these naratives are attempts to convey objective historical events. >Anyone making this asumption with be set straight by any historian of the >times. > >Scripture is concerned ultimately with the salvation of souls and with >conveying spirtual knowledge. [ see John ch6:63] To convey things that are >spiritually discerned. {see I Cor. ch2:14] The writers of the Bible recorded >many facts, but they also used symbolism to convey the spiritual significance >of those facts, a significance otherwise not apparent to many people. They >wrote not merely to record what they knew, saw, or heard, but to inspire >faith in those who heard their record. > >John said this very plainly when he wrote: > >"These signs are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the >Son of God, and believing you may have life in His name." [John ch20:31] > > >best regards, > >pete > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:13 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 11:57 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Mr. Grider: > >In past postings you have answered my questions concerning your acceptance >or rejection of Baha'u'llah by stating that you do not believe in >Baha'u'llah. The content of your postings strongly conveys the message that >Bah'as mislead, and are mislead. Nonetheless, you continue to return to us, >so, one can conclude that your heart is telling you something. > >You say that you are a Christian, and so I thought it would be fruitful to >determine what that means to you. What are the requirements, in your >opinion, and in your heart, for being a Christian? What Teachings, Laws and >Ordinances are essential, that must be observed in order for His Holiness >Christ to accept you? > >Perhaps, a discussion of your beliefs might lead us somewhere in the >direction of unity, which is, after all, the purpose of Gods Religion, and, >additionally, the meaning of the word "religion" itself. > >Respectfully, > >Robert A. Little >Dale Grider wrote in message <350A0163.7612@bellsouth.net>... >>In regards to Rogers comments rgmc01 says, > > >(deleted) > >is anything but trivial, and that, in fact, >>is fatal to Baha'i theology when considering the validity of >>Baha'u'llah's claim to represent the return of Christ.Baha'i theology >>tries to patronizingly concede the literal acceptability of miracles >>while it hurries to move us past genuine consideration of the >>implications of such conceded acceptability with the hasty assumption >>that there are no signifigant implications > >(deleted) > >> >>Whether intentional or not, such is rhetorical trickery that attempts to >>concede a reality > >(deleted) > >. You can't just >>admit them and then brush such an admission off by hastily assuming that >>only spiritualized, symbolic meaning can be drawn from them. > >(deleted) > >Revealingly, such implications of a personally >>risen Jesus reveal the impossibility of Baha'u'llah's (some different >>person's) claims as Christ's return.> > >(deleted) > >>In Christ, >>Dale > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:14 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 11:36 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >There is an interesting question contained in your statement concerning ". . >.an individual when they follow the teaching of Christ." > >Baha'is frequently mention Principles which enunciate the Teachings of >Baha'u'llah; for example, the essential harmony between Religion and >Science, the equality of rights and privileges of women and men, the >Obligatory nature of prayer and fasting, and others. > >I have read the Bible, and found an injunction to not only observe the Fast, >but instructions on how to behave. This is one example, and there are >others, of course. Would you please briefly list those Teachings and >Principles you believe to be a requisite for being considered a Christian? > >With Respect, > >Robert A. Little > >>However the main point should be that the true resurrection, a resurrection >>that is happening on a daily basis all around the world, is the change that >>takes place in an individual when they follow the teachings of Christ. > >>> https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ >>> >> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:14 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:12 PM Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >Roger Reini (rreini@wwnet.net) wrote: >: bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote: >: > >: > We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >: > make them available to folks on the net. >: >: I would urge you NOT to do this. For I fear that nothing good can come >: of it. > >and some harm can. It takes cojones, Mr. Anonymous, to get a >Hotmail account and call it Baha'i Faith. Do you realize that >everything you post from that account will be taken by the world >(those who don't know any better, that is) as being official >statements? That's a pretty heavy load to place on the religion >you think you're defending. A hostile, demeaning, cantankerous >tone is one thing when you speak in your own voice. When you >hide your identity and speak as if on behalf of an entire >religion, it *really* stinks. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:15 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: MoSfEt Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 1:05 PM Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >In article <6ebcsa$264@news1.newsguy.com>, "Frederick says... >> >>I would hope more constructive conversation could now take place, >>given the recent choice of roughly 600 Bahais not to squelch the >>possibility of free speech and conscience.... > >As long as you keep twisting facts to support your delusional anti-free speech >or anti-glaysher conspiracy theories, you will be called to task. Those ~600 >votes the first time around resulted from that stupid NO-vote campaign via >email, and the NO voters were predominantly people who don't even participate in >Usenet. It was a massive kneejerk OVERreaction, and an admittedly bad one at >that. So the conclusion this time around was simple. No voting campaign, no >(less?) uninformed votes. And the ones who don't participate in Usenet didn't >even know about the second vote, so they didn't play a hand, informed OR >mis-informed. > >Don't be deceived and think that ~600 'learned' from this experience. I would >say *some* learned, but not even close to that many. > >You've said some pretty nasty things over the past year, Fred. Things that most >would agree go at all odds to how a Baha'i should act and speak (well, write). >You kept complaining about people 'demonizing' you, but what about your constant >'demonizing' of Mark? You held him up for ridicule MONTHS after he ceased what >he was doing (and reputedly even apologized for). And you're surprised that >others would now do the same thing with you? This looks like a double-standard. >Unless, of course, you regret what you've done and have had a change of heart as >to what is more appropriate speech to use. > >Usenet is a public forum. Participation in here makes you, to a certain extent, >a public figure (well, if you choose to identify yourself). As a 'public' >figure of sorts, we have public archives of all participants, and can call them >on their past performance. Well, buck up, Fred, you're being called on your >past performance. > >Ain't free speech grand? > >MoSfEt > >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >>bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message >><6e9him$v9s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>>We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >>>make them available to folks on the net. >>> >>>The first book called "Holy Utterances" is a compilation of Fred's >>>anti-Iranian posts. It will be refered to as UTTER for short. >>> >>>The second book called "Certain Other Writings" is a compilation >>>of Fred's other writings, such as the long persecution of Mark >>>Towfiq and his conspiracy theories(tm). It will be refered to as >>>COW for short. >>> >>>Stay tuned for some very enlightening posts. >>> >>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:16 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: bahai_faith@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 4:37 PM Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >Wow, a little conspiracy quote, but basically no blow up, what's happening? > My world is shattered. I can't go on any longer. At least say something >nasty about Iranian Baha'is again, so I can tell that the old Fred is still >there. > > >In article <6ebcsa$264@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> I would hope more constructive conversation could now take place, >> given the recent choice of roughly 600 Bahais not to squelch the >> possibility of free speech and conscience.... >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >> send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote in message >> <6e9him$v9s$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >We have compiled Glaysher's writings into two books and will soon >> >make them available to folks on the net. >> > >> >The first book called "Holy Utterances" is a compilation of Fred's >> >anti-Iranian posts. It will be refered to as UTTER for short. >> > >> >The second book called "Certain Other Writings" is a compilation >> >of Fred's other writings, such as the long persecution of Mark >> >Towfiq and his conspiracy theories(tm). It will be refered to as >> >COW for short. >> > >> >Stay tuned for some very enlightening posts. >> > >> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:17 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: bahai_faith@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >Fred, > >Did I make it onto your enemys list yeT? I really need to know. > >In article <6e9gr2$ujn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > bahai_faith@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Oh wow, an enemy's list, this is just like the Nixon days! >> >> I'm just sorry I didn't get on your list... >> >> In article <6e8mea$fqd@news1.newsguy.com>, >> "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:18 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Hope for the future fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Scott P. Duncan Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 10:16 AM Subject: Hope for the future >> >Indeed, more and bitterer wars were begun from a difference of >> >opinion over religion than from any other reason, through the >> >history of mankind. We've a sad history, but as long as there's >> >a core (from all over the world) that keeps striving to become >> >"more," there will always be hope for all. >> >> I hope you're right. I have my doubts about human kind.... > >The initial post and this response raise a couple of interesting questions: > >What is the nature of religious belief that results in such conflict and >is this inevitable due to the Revelations themselves or an aspect of >how humanity deals with Revelation? > >What can be done about this situation from within the community of >religions world-wide? > >Is the doubt expressed about humanity's future an inevitable aspect >of what the various Revelations teach? > >If so, what do people feel the likely outcome is? > >If not, what causes one to have such doubt in the face of what the >various Revelations say? > >I think the Baha'i Writings, at least, suggest that "true religion" is not >the source of such conflict and that there is significant hope for the >future of humanity on this planet, despite the trials that will beset us >in the future. But this view is clearly not shared either by certain in- >terpretations of various Revelations or the feelings of inidividuals, even >those associated with what seem to be more hopeful statements about >the future of humanity. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:19 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Persian Language Courses fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 9:52 PM Subject: Re: Persian Language Courses >In article <6e9363$kae$1@orthanc.reference.com>, > bahai@NoSPAM-1680.hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Looking a way to learn Persian on my own. Anyone have any >> suggestions? >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted using Reference.COM https://WWW.Reference.COM >> FREE Usenet and Mailing list archive, directory and clipping service >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >1) Go to Iran. Immersion is the best way to learn a language. >2) Take classes from a native speaker. >3) Buy cassettes and books and learn practically nothing unless >you're unusually talented linguistically. > >Persian is hard to learn, not because of grammatical complexity, but because >it uses a completely different script, one in which most vowels are not >written (except as vowel markers for beginners, which are dropped in the >writings for more advanced readers). Then there is the problem of reading >calligraphic script vs. printed script. > >The spoken and written language are somewhat different, because the spoken >language takes a lot of short cuts that are not in the written >language.Persian also has adopted a lot of Arabic, and so you have to deal >with Arabic words and their plurals (ketab, book, kotoob, books) plus the >Persian plurals (ketabha, books). > >The more formal works you may want to read in the original Persian >(such as the Baha'i writings) will not be accessible to you without >years of study. You can't expect an English as a second language >reader to be able to tackle Shakespearian English after just a couple > of years of study. It's the same with formal Persian works. > >If you want to learn survival phrases, I know there are books out there that >teach you. There are also books that teach some elementary Persian, but I >don't know how far they'll get you without a teacher. You have to hear a >language to be able to pronounce it correctly. > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:20 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: WHY BAHA'I? fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 11:33 PM Subject: Re: WHY BAHA'I? >In article , > jkrobert@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig (Jason Roberts) wrote: >> >> In article <350a176b.9520360@news.newsguy.com>, rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:37:35 -0600, >> > jkrobert@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig (Jason Roberts) wrote: >> >> > >I was just wondering, what do Bahais think of this? >> >> > [quotation from Darrick Evenson snipped] >> >> > He is entitled to his opinions, as you are to yours and as I am to >> > mine. >> >> Granted. I am not questioning his _right_ to view things the way he does. >> >> I would like to know how other Baha'is feel. Can someone be a "good >> baha'i" and feel this way. Does it mesh with other aspects of Baha'i >> teachings, or is it in contradiction? >> >> Is hoping for a straight answer hoping for too much? >> >> -JR > >Jason, > I will give you MY opinion. The Baha'is really don't know what to make of >it. To be a "Baha'i" is to accept Baha'u'llah and obey His Laws. This is the >definition in *Baha'u'llah & The New Era*, and by 'Abdu'l-Baha--the Son of >Baha'u'llah and Interpreter of the Faith. Now, in the days of 'Abdu'l-Baha a >person could be a Baha'i Muslim, a Methodist Baha'i, etc. However, when Shoghi >Effendi, the grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Guardian of the Faith (he died in >1957) came to power, he declared that one cannot be a member of the >Administrative Order, and a Muslim, Methodist, etc. What is the Administrative >Order? This is the organization of Baha'is. It includes the Institutions, and >the Members. The Institutions include the Universal House of Justice, National >and Local Spiritual Assemblies, Auxiliary Boards, anda Continental >Counsellors. Individual Baha'is are Members of Local Spiritual Assemblies >(LSAs). I don't call myself a "Baha'i Mormon". I no longer call myself a >"Baha'i"; because I no longer belong to the Administrative Order. But I am a >Believer in Baha'u'llah. Can you be a Believer and not a Member of the >Administrative Order? From everything I've read, the answer is YES! The only >rule to follow is that you can't be a Member of the Administrative Order AND a >member of another church/religion. > 'Abdu'l-Baha once said that one day EVERYONE will become a Believer in the >Revelation of Baha'u'llah. He didn't say, "Everyone will become a Baha'i!" >(although many Baha'is interpret it that way). The Millennium is interpreted >by Baha'is as when the World Order of Baha'u'llah is established. This means >that in each country there will be a National House of Justice, made up of 9 >or more Baha'is, and in each city and town another House of Justice. Early >Mormon prophets and apostles spoke of the Millennial Kingdom; ruled by men who >will, according to Brigham Young, "give laws unto the nations". > I believe that, one day, the Church will bow the knee (i.e. accept) >Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ. I don't believe that in that day the >temples will be closed, and the Church will cease to function! I believe that >the Church will take it's place as the Levites did in ancient Israel;l if you >can understand the typology. > Baha'is have various understandings of the Faith; some of which are often in >contradiction of what Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha said. Many Baha'is see the >Faith as merely a "Social-Reform/World Peace" organization with a few >religious overtones, but this is changing. I happen to believe that Joseph >Smith's 1890-91 prophecies were fulfilled in Baha'u'llah. If they weren't, >then he was a false prophet. No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'! However, I believe >that the Priesthood will continue to function for the purpose for which it was >given; to redeem the living and the dead. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is >the Millennial Kingdom. I've read NOTHING that says membership in the >Administrative Order is a requirement for accepting Baha'u'llah as LORD! I've >read many things otherwise. However, the Guardian said that one cannot be a >member of the Administrative Order AND another religion/church/fraternity. So, >I cannot be a "Baha'i" and a "Mormon". But I'll aways be a Believer in the >Revelation of Baha'u'llah. >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:32 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Truce # 2 Those endowed with historical memory might recall there has been a precedent.... A substantial change largely honored by the signatories, shall I say? Given the constructive change Bahais recently demonstrated, it's time for another one.... That change has not yet been fully discussed. News.groups was not the place for it. A point well taken: >Perhaps a start to a more constructive conversation would be to stop rehashing >the past at every opportunity. Your point has been made and discussed many >times. Some people agree with you, some don't. Let's stop grinding the "free >speech and conscience" axe. Let's stop all accusations of conspiracy and >censorship, no matter how obliquely put. >David Bowie There has been much innuendo, accusation, etc., from Bahais too.... We ALL might consider lying down our axes.... Both sides need to pass the peace pipe, if you will.... Let's all begin now.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:39 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha fwd -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 8:33 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha >Thank you for your message of Bahai love and tolerance.... > >May I repost this to alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com? > >I am sure many would benefit from your example.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric D. Pierce >To: talisman@umich.edu >Date: Thursday, March 12, 1998 1:07 PM >Subject: Re: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha > > >> From: "Frederick Glaysher" >> To: "talisman" >> Subject: : Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.bahai >> Date sent: Thu, 12 Mar 1998 08:05:27 -0500 > >> How do you explain such antagonism? > >Might part of it have something to do with the same objections that >non-Baha'is on Usenet had to many of your "t.r.b." messages, which >were characterized by: > >* undercutting of the attempts that your cosponsors were making > to legitimize the "pro-t.r.b." effort, > >* weak/inconsistent presentation of positive arguments for t.r.b., > >* excessive paranoia and hostility, > >* frequent lack of objectivity, > >* a willingness to twist people's words and jump to ridiculously > wild and irrational conclusions in order to impugn many of the > people that have expressed objections to your arguments. > >Your posting of the "no" list in connection of the above question is >quite offensive, and seems to be a bald revenge tactic. > >I think a lot of people are wondering if you have become mired in an >unending cycle of conflict, and are dependent on a false sense of >powerlessness and victimization. > >For those who have dared to voice dissent over their experience of >the onerous weight of perfectionistic posturing, fundamentalism and >their child: the culture of administrative abuse in the community, >maintaining a sense of integrity requires *consistent* criticism of >all forms of unethical behavior and speech, including the manner in >which you have highjacked the need for openness and criticism, and >used it to grind old axes, nurse personal grudges and provide comfort >to those who would maintain a dysfunctional mindset and engage in >high drama rather than legitimately expore new and innovative >approaches to bringing about progressive change in the community. > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:41 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Eric D. Pierce To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 4:15 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha On 13 Mar 98 at 8:21, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Subject: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha > Date sent: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 08:21:46 -0500 > Thank you for your message of Bahai love and tolerance.... Isn't honesty the most primary "virtue"? At least I take the time to actually tell you what I think, even if it is unvarnished. If you think that cowing people with your dysfunctional bullshit will result in "love and tolerance", you're wrong. People will just write you off as a fruitcake, and try to avoid any contact with you. That isn't "tolerance", it's "out of sight, out of mind". Your behavior invites people (your supposed opponents) to perpetuate a cycle of dehumanizing, dysfunctional "in-group/out-group" behavior. You need to: ------------- TAKE RESPONSIBILTY FOR *STOPPING* *THE* *LIES* THAT EVERYONE BUYS INTO ABOUT THIS STUFF ------------- > May I repost this to alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com? Absolutely, please send everything. That way your smug little group of people that have exiled themselves from the sane world will get their daily fix of self-righteousness. > I am sure many would benefit from your example.... How are they benefiting from *your* "example"? > > Frederick Glaysher Fred, your most recent post once again precisely illustrates many of the points that I criticised you about. eg, you exhibit antagonism, then get all irritated when other people get antagonistic with YOU. Also, if you don't want anybody to answer your question, then why did you ask it? Everyone knows that you have had hassles with Baha'i publication review. Everyone knows that you have had hassles with fundamentalists and narrow minded authoritarian administrators. SO WHAT. Because of those experiences, you have had an excuse to whine about things, but a ***LOT*** of people are getting sick of listening to your repetitive, picky whining OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Actually, on a personal level, I am not at all antagonistic or intolerant to you. I think you have made good (if largely unoriginal) points about various problems in the Baha'i community, but I would really like to see you learn how to move on to actually dealing with "solutions", and not just keep whining. Have a spectacularly wonderful day, Eric D. Pierce Sacramento ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 8:45 AM To: Star Saffa Subject: Re: Propagation of the Bahai Message Welcome! I added your name a day or two ago to the mailing list. You should be receiving messages. If not, please contact me again. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 8:51 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 9:02 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >I have read the last several responses in this thread. I am asked to >discuss my personal beliefs in terms of doctrinal "essentials" for right >Faith. Fair enough and certainly a critical consideration. I will indeed >formulate some ideas to share with the group. > > >But it is so very curious to me that the critically revealing aspect of >Christ's personal Resurrection, and the obvious implications it bears >upon the true nature of His return, has been utterly sidestepped??? The >logic drawn from the direction the discussion has led is being dodged >when I am asked to present fundamentals of Christian Faith within the >context of immediate discussion that is specific in reasoning the >singular incarnate deity of Christ, whose literal physical Resurrection >as discribed in Scripture leads to the realization of His PERSONAL >Resurrection, and thus also His PERSONAL return. These observations so >recently shared, and utterly disregarded carry implications that already >support doctrinal fundamentals of Truth along the lines of those >fundamental that are being asked for. 1) His physical Resurrection >leads to the inevitable conclusion that any who come claiming His return >but He Himself, in person, are impostors, Baha'u'llah notwithstanding. >2)Such indications of singular and Personal signifigance in His >Resurrection that necesitate the same Personal nature of His return >should help us realize that Jesus IS God the Son, singularly above all, >not a manifestation-reflection in common station with others. > >There are other doctrinal fundamentals and I believe they can all be >developed along the reasoned line of thought I have presented for these >now shared. The Message of the Gospel is "provable" in the validity of >its theological framework and progression of ideas. If not, Romans Ch1 >would not be true. Accepting that Truth is another story. > >More to follow, >In Christ, >Dale:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 8:53 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Baha'i teachings >(I don't have quote capabilities on this little computer so will refer to >arguments paraphrastically). >Dale's reference to the resurrection as a literal event may, or may not >(evidently) be an accurate interpetation. The Bab was also involved in a >similar "event," wherein He and Mirza-Muhammad-Ali were tied to the post and >fired upon by a firing squad; when the smoke cleared, "an astounded multitude >were looking upon a scene which their eyes could scarcely believe. There, >standing before them alive and unhurt, was the companion of the Bab, whilst He >himself had vanished uninjured from their sight. Though the cords with which >they were suspended had been rent in pieces by the bullets, yet their bodies >has miraculously esacped the volleys...(The Dawnbreakers, p.375). >From this, and the reappearance of Christ to His disciples, it is evident that >God can and does "break" His physical laws if the need arises; we call these >"miracles" because we don't understand what is going on. The physical laws >may not have actually been broken, of course, but only appear to have been by >people (us) who really don't understand what they are, but have a superficial >glimmer of comprehension. Abdul'Baha, in SAQ, states that using "miracles" >as proof of a Manifestation's reality is invalid, because it is too subjective >and too prone to being labeled "trickery." We should look at the *message* of >the Manifestation and glean our proof from that. I notice He stresses the >words "logical" and "reasonable" alot, indicating we are out of the era of >"miraculous" proofs and into that of "reason." A hopeful sign for humanity. >Those who would argue that Baha'u'llah claimed to be the return of Christ, and >was foretold by Christ, I would point out the quote from Abdul'Baha in BWO p. >358: >" His Holiness Abraham, on Him be peace, made a covenant regarding His >Holiness Moses and gave the glad tidings of His coming. His Holiness Moses >made a covenant regarding the Promised One, i.e. His Holiness Christ, and >announced the good news of His manifestation to the world. His Holiness >Christ made a covenant regarding the Paraclete and gave the tidings of His >coming. His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning the Bab >and the Bab was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the glad >tidings of His coming..." >From this, and the multitude of references in the Iqan, we see that Christ >speaks of His return meaning Muhammad, not Baha'u'llah. "Inasmuch as the >Christian divines have failed to apprehend the meaning of these words (the >signs of the Son of man, etc), and did not recognize their meaning and >purpose, and have clung to the literal interpretation of the words of Jesus, >THEY THEREFORE BECAME DEPRIVED OF THE STREAMING GRACE OF THE MUHAMMEDAN >REVELATION and its showering bounties..."(p.26) (insertion mine). >My final comment is a reminder of the fact that becoming attached to the >personalities of the Manifestations, and insisting upon glorifying one above >the other, is construed by Baha'u'llah as having no real comprehension of >what a Manifestation is. One aspect of God does not overshadow another; one >Messenger of the Holy Word does not have more import than another: they are >the mouthpieces for God's Word and teach us His Will and in such a sense are >all above our comprehension. >"Inasmuch as the Birds of the Celestial Throne are all sent down from the >heaven of the Will of God, and as They all arise to proclaim His irresistible >faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one soul AND THE SAME PERSON." >(Gleanings XXII). >'One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, >if thou callest Them all by one name, and dost ascribe to Them the same >attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth.. Even as He hath revealed ;" >No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers..." (ibid). >"...should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying "I am the >return of all the Prophets," he, verily, speaketh the truth. In like manner, >in every subsequent revelation, the return of the former revelation is a fact, >the truth of which is firmly established." (ibid). >Nancy > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 8:58 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 5:58 PM Subject: Robert Henderson & Abortion > I resigned from the Baha'i Faith about 18 months ago in protest of the >NSABUS' refusal to to inform Baha'is of what the Guardian and the Universal >House of Justice said about abortion (i.e. that elective abortion "is >absolutely forbidden in the Faith"). I applied to reinstatement upon the >condition that I simply be informed by the National Spritual Assembly of how >they view the subject; if elective abortion was forbidden, or if it wasn't. I >received a letter from Dr. Robert Henderson, Secretary-General of the NSABUS, >telling me that my 'opinions' on abortion (i.e. that elective abortion was >forbidden) were "at variance with that of the Guardian and the Universal House >of Justice" (really, the House told me otherwise!). I asked Dr. Henderson >repeatedly in letters and via email to simply 'come clean' and tell me whether >or not he agreed with the Guardian that "abortion is the taking of innocent >human life and should be vehementaly preached against!" To date, I have had no >reply from him. > It is my educated opinion that Dr. Henderson is Pro-Choice, and that he >feels that he can simply ignore what the Guardian commanded on this subject, >and what the House has declared, because he feels that they are both wrong >concerning this subject. It is my further opinion that Dr. Henderson is a >hypocrite; by claiming to follow the Guardian and the House, and at the same >time ignoring those Laws and commandments he disagrees with. Under his >'leadership' the Faith in this country has experienced stagnant growth, and he >continues to act as the "UNCLE TOM" of Pro-Choice so-called "Baha'is". He is >dupicious, dishonest, and a disgrace to the name "Baha'i". >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 8:59 AM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) Hiram wrote in message <01bd4ffa$37c02700$268859d1@default>... >Darrick > >Do you suppose that by publicly taking the privilege of evaluating the >spiritual and moral nature of another human being (Dr. Henderson to be >precise) you are placing yourself above him morally? And, are you of the >opinion that you are justified in rejecting the Baha'i Faith in total, and >all of the world wide administration because you are personally unhappy >with your perception of another Baha'is attitudes and actions, even if you >are correct in your interpretation? And, are you of the opinion that the >Baha'i Faith will be damaged and thus have to sit up and reevaluate itself >because you, in all your pride and glory, have chosen to remove yourself >from the cause? > >I may be wrong in this, and I stand to be corrected if I am, but I would >offer you this thought if you are willing to recieve it; > >The Baha'i Faith doesn't need me, I need the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i >Faith will go on living and will reach It's destiny even if every human >soul rejects It. It is a life and a thing unto itself, and offers us a >share in It's life; it doesn't NEED us for anything. > >Respecfully, your brother > >Baxter (BC, Canada) > > >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in article <6ef1vs$h5t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> I resigned from the Baha'i Faith about 18 months ago in protest of the >> NSABUS' refusal to to inform Baha'is of what the Guardian and the >Universal >> House of Justice said about abortion (i.e. that elective abortion "is >> absolutely forbidden in the Faith"). I applied to reinstatement upon the >> condition that I simply be informed by the National Spritual Assembly of >how >> they view the subject; if elective abortion was forbidden, or if it >wasn't. I >> received a letter from Dr. Robert Henderson, Secretary-General of the >NSABUS, >> telling me that my 'opinions' on abortion (i.e. that elective abortion >was >> forbidden) were "at variance with that of the Guardian and the Universal >House >> of Justice" (really, the House told me otherwise!). I asked Dr. Henderson >> repeatedly in letters and via email to simply 'come clean' and tell me >whether >> or not he agreed with the Guardian that "abortion is the taking of >innocent >> human life and should be vehementaly preached against!" To date, I have >had no >> reply from him. >> It is my educated opinion that Dr. Henderson is Pro-Choice, and that he >> feels that he can simply ignore what the Guardian commanded on this >subject, >> and what the House has declared, because he feels that they are both >wrong >> concerning this subject. It is my further opinion that Dr. Henderson is a >> hypocrite; by claiming to follow the Guardian and the House, and at the >same >> time ignoring those Laws and commandments he disagrees with. Under his >> 'leadership' the Faith in this country has experienced stagnant growth, >and he >> continues to act as the "UNCLE TOM" of Pro-Choice so-called "Baha'is". He >is >> dupicious, dishonest, and a disgrace to the name "Baha'i". >> Darrick Evenson ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 9:00 AM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6ef1vs$h5t$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > I resigned from the Baha'i Faith about 18 months ago in protest of the >NSABUS' refusal to to inform Baha'is of what the Guardian and the Universal >House of Justice said about abortion (i.e. that elective abortion "is >absolutely forbidden in the Faith"). I applied to reinstatement upon the >condition that I simply be informed by the National Spritual Assembly of how >they view the subject; if elective abortion was forbidden, or if it wasn't. I >received a letter from Dr. Robert Henderson, Secretary-General of the NSABUS, >telling me that my 'opinions' on abortion (i.e. that elective abortion was >forbidden) were "at variance with that of the Guardian and the Universal House >of Justice" (really, the House told me otherwise!). I asked Dr. Henderson >repeatedly in letters and via email to simply 'come clean' and tell me whether >or not he agreed with the Guardian that "abortion is the taking of innocent >human life and should be vehementaly preached against!" To date, I have had no >reply from him. > It is my educated opinion that Dr. Henderson is Pro-Choice, and that he >feels that he can simply ignore what the Guardian commanded on this subject, >and what the House has declared, because he feels that they are both wrong >concerning this subject. It is my further opinion that Dr. Henderson is a >hypocrite; by claiming to follow the Guardian and the House, and at the same >time ignoring those Laws and commandments he disagrees with. Under his >'leadership' the Faith in this country has experienced stagnant growth, and he >continues to act as the "UNCLE TOM" of Pro-Choice so-called "Baha'is". He is >dupicious, dishonest, and a disgrace to the name "Baha'i". >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 15, 1998 9:03 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: WHY BAHA'I? fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6ed185$tfa$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article , > jkrobert@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig (Jason Roberts) wrote: >> >> In article <350a176b.9520360@news.newsguy.com>, rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 09:37:35 -0600, >> > jkrobert@students.wisc.edu.nolongpig (Jason Roberts) wrote: >> >> > >I was just wondering, what do Bahais think of this? >> >> > [quotation from Darrick Evenson snipped] >> >> > He is entitled to his opinions, as you are to yours and as I am to >> > mine. >> >> Granted. I am not questioning his _right_ to view things the way he does. >> >> I would like to know how other Baha'is feel. Can someone be a "good >> baha'i" and feel this way. Does it mesh with other aspects of Baha'i >> teachings, or is it in contradiction? >> >> Is hoping for a straight answer hoping for too much? >> >> -JR > >Jason, > I will give you MY opinion. The Baha'is really don't know what to make of >it. To be a "Baha'i" is to accept Baha'u'llah and obey His Laws. This is the >definition in *Baha'u'llah & The New Era*, and by 'Abdu'l-Baha--the Son of >Baha'u'llah and Interpreter of the Faith. Now, in the days of 'Abdu'l-Baha a >person could be a Baha'i Muslim, a Methodist Baha'i, etc. However, when Shoghi >Effendi, the grandson of 'Abdu'l-Baha and Guardian of the Faith (he died in >1957) came to power, he declared that one cannot be a member of the >Administrative Order, and a Muslim, Methodist, etc. What is the Administrative >Order? This is the organization of Baha'is. It includes the Institutions, and >the Members. The Institutions include the Universal House of Justice, National >and Local Spiritual Assemblies, Auxiliary Boards, anda Continental >Counsellors. Individual Baha'is are Members of Local Spiritual Assemblies >(LSAs). I don't call myself a "Baha'i Mormon". I no longer call myself a >"Baha'i"; because I no longer belong to the Administrative Order. But I am a >Believer in Baha'u'llah. Can you be a Believer and not a Member of the >Administrative Order? From everything I've read, the answer is YES! The only >rule to follow is that you can't be a Member of the Administrative Order AND a >member of another church/religion. > 'Abdu'l-Baha once said that one day EVERYONE will become a Believer in the >Revelation of Baha'u'llah. He didn't say, "Everyone will become a Baha'i!" >(although many Baha'is interpret it that way). The Millennium is interpreted >by Baha'is as when the World Order of Baha'u'llah is established. This means >that in each country there will be a National House of Justice, made up of 9 >or more Baha'is, and in each city and town another House of Justice. Early >Mormon prophets and apostles spoke of the Millennial Kingdom; ruled by men who >will, according to Brigham Young, "give laws unto the nations". > I believe that, one day, the Church will bow the knee (i.e. accept) >Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ. I don't believe that in that day the >temples will be closed, and the Church will cease to function! I believe that >the Church will take it's place as the Levites did in ancient Israel;l if you >can understand the typology. > Baha'is have various understandings of the Faith; some of which are often in >contradiction of what Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha said. Many Baha'is see the >Faith as merely a "Social-Reform/World Peace" organization with a few >religious overtones, but this is changing. I happen to believe that Joseph >Smith's 1890-91 prophecies were fulfilled in Baha'u'llah. If they weren't, >then he was a false prophet. No 'ifs', 'ands', or 'buts'! However, I believe >that the Priesthood will continue to function for the purpose for which it was >given; to redeem the living and the dead. I believe that the Baha'i Faith is >the Millennial Kingdom. I've read NOTHING that says membership in the >Administrative Order is a requirement for accepting Baha'u'llah as LORD! I've >read many things otherwise. However, the Guardian said that one cannot be a >member of the Administrative Order AND another religion/church/fraternity. So, >I cannot be a "Baha'i" and a "Mormon". But I'll aways be a Believer in the >Revelation of Baha'u'llah. >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:16 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 6:14 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion >Derrick Evanson objects to the deliberate concealment of the law against >elective abortion. I think the UHJ put this out publicly in a letter to the >believers (or perhaps to one believer, I don't exactly recall). It was posted >on srb about a month ago, so if you have archives available you can pull that >up. The question is: how many people actually READ what is put out by the >UHJ? There shouldn't be any ignorance about their official position, unless >these letters and manifests are being kept away from the believers (not being >privvy to any of the material, I depend on some friends to send them to me so >I can see what's happening in that community). >I think the problem lies largely in the general atmosphere of trying to >create 'entry by troops." You are presenting a conservative agenda to a >society that has degenerated to a point of animalistic behavior, and who >doesn't want to hear about self control, chastity, no drugs, no alcohol, etc. >This leads to resistance, which leads to lack of inductees, so to speak. I >think this is why the Faith has more success in countries hwere life is >simpler and some moral values linger. When my parents were young and >pioneered for the Faith, they were amazed and horrified at the manner in which >many Baha'is "watered down" the Teachings to make them acceptable to possible >converts. Too many young people were coming into the Faith not knowing that >alcohol was forbidden and promiscuous sex as well. When they found out about >these injunctions, they left again, in what Dr Cole calls the "revolving door" >effect. >It is but a fulfillment of Shoghi Effendi's warnings: we have become a sick >society indeed. It is up to the Baha'is to demonstrate that living a life of >self discipline can actually feel good, rather than trying to hide the fact so >people don't think you're a prude, or too "straight," or whatever label they >come up with for those who try to live sanely in an insane world... >nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: : Re: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha fwd -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 6:17 AM Subject: Re: Re: Fw: Annotated NO voter's list: talk.religion.baha >Re: Dr Pierce's post to Talisman. I see the rhetoric has gone from annoyed to >vituperative. Too bad. I have found Dr Pierce to be generally a very >tolerant and broad minded person. Whenever I see this type of "let's get down >in the mud and slug it out" sort of thing, I am reminded of the Bab's >admonishing: >"O My servants, fear God, and when you wish to debate with someone, write your >arguments and proofs with the greatest modesty and with the greatest >politeness, and then tell them to each other....the aim of this command is >that when you find yourselves in the presence of God...you will not have >commited acts that will sadden Him, without you being aware of it."(Vahid >X:7). > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:20 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 9:40 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >In article <350B9A32.25FC@bellsouth.net>, > Dale Grider wrote: >> > >> But it is so very curious to me that the critically revealing aspect of >> Christ's personal Resurrection, and the obvious implications it bears >> upon the true nature of His return, has been utterly sidestepped??? > >Dale, > >This is because to Baha'is the physical resurrection is not as important as >the spiritual significance of the resurrection of Christ. If you feel you >need to prove the physical resurrection to be real you are completely missing >the point. Baha'is are not here to disprove the physical aspect. If you >carefully read Baha'i writings you will find that it is more to the point >that Baha'is are not required to believe the physical aspects of any >miracles. It is our duty to try to understand their true significance which >lies in the symbolic aspect of scripture. An aspect that is upheld not only >by Baha'is but numerous Christian denominations. > >The main point I am making is the Baha'i view of scripture is equally valid >as your view and to attempt to disprove one onother is nothing but a >discussion that begins with words and ends with words. I believe you will >find our time better suited to discussing the similarities of our faiths and >then working to make the world a better place. > >best regards, > >pete > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:22 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 1:28 AM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >In article <6ehkbr$7ec$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu wrote: > >> > Your statement gives the tone that the jury is in and the leadership is >> corrupt. While every Baha'i has the writings to turn to concerning life >> before and after birth, any ruling on whether Baha'is can or cannot have an >> abortion has been left up to the Universal House of Justice to decide. Until >> such time as a deciision is made by the Universal House of Justice the >> individual decision is just that, individual. I personally would hope that >> anyone who carefully reflects on the Baha'i writings would elect NOT to have >> an abortion, but that is my opinion and it is still their decision. If this >> fits your definition of pro-choice then so be it. > > Baha'is who do not follow the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice, >both who have declared that elective abortions are "absolutely forbidden in >the Faith" are simply self-deceived hypocrites, and will taste the fire! So >mote it be! >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:23 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Alma Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >I looked in vain for the name of Baha'u'llah in this message. After all it >was he who founded the religion and gave the laws. So far as I know, >Baha'u'llah never wrote about abortion. And I think that the Universal House >of Justice, which has the ability to pass laws when there is nothing in the >sacred writings, has not passed any laws on abortion. Therefore it is the >woman who must decide what she should do in her particular case. > >In peace, >Alma >zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <6eh357$jjq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Hmm....pots and kettles, motes and beams? It seems to me that Darrick >hasn't >>rejected the spirit of the Baha'i faith, but, seeing something wrong with >the >>body, has stood up to say something. If a Baha'i's interpretations are in >>direct conflict with what the Guardian or Abdul Baha has said, who is >right? >>Should people passively accept the leadership of people who don't know or >>accept the Guardian's own words? Should we remain unaware of this? >> >>In article <01bd4ffa$37c02700$268859d1@default>, >> "Hiram" wrote: >>> >>> Darrick >>> >>> Do you suppose that by publicly taking the privilege of evaluating the >>> spiritual and moral nature of another human being (Dr. Henderson to be >>> precise) you are placing yourself above him morally? And, are you of the >>> opinion that you are justified in rejecting the Baha'i Faith in total, >and >>> all of the world wide administration because you are personally unhappy >>> with your perception of another Baha'is attitudes and actions, even if >you >>> are correct in your interpretation? And, are you of the opinion that the >>> Baha'i Faith will be damaged and thus have to sit up and reevaluate >itself >>> because you, in all your pride and glory, have chosen to remove yourself >>> from the cause? >>> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:26 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fwd Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 1:23 AM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >In article <01bd4ffa$37c02700$268859d1@default>, > "Hiram" wrote: >> >> Darrick >> >> Do you suppose that by publicly taking the privilege of evaluating the >> spiritual and moral nature of another human being (Dr. Henderson to be >> precise) you are placing yourself above him morally? > > Yes, just like if Hitler wanted to kill Jews, and I opposed him for that. > > And, are you of the >> opinion that you are justified in rejecting the Baha'i Faith in total, and >> all of the world wide administration because you are personally unhappy >> with your perception of another Baha'is attitudes and actions, even if you >> are correct in your interpretation? > > No, it is not the duplicity of Dr. Henderson, but the fact that the Faith >doesn't fulfill me spiritually. It seems to me, at this time, that it is a big >eternal 'sociology class'; 1% religion and 99% social-reform club. Perhaps >this is merely my own fault, but, until I change, that is the way it appears >to me. > > And, are you of the opinion that the >> Baha'i Faith will be damaged and thus have to sit up and reevaluate itself >> because you, in all your pride and glory, have chosen to remove yourself >> from the cause? > > No. I believe the Faith is damaged itself by electing Uncle Toms like Dr. >Henderson. My leaving means nothing. > >> I may be wrong in this, and I stand to be corrected if I am, but I would >> offer you this thought if you are willing to recieve it; >> >> The Baha'i Faith doesn't need me, I need the Baha'i Faith. The Baha'i >> Faith will go on living and will reach It's destiny even if every human >> soul rejects It. It is a life and a thing unto itself, and offers us a >> share in It's life; it doesn't NEED us for anything. > > I agree. Being a Baha'i won't get me to Heaven, or keep me from Hell! So, >personally, I don't need it! > >> Respecfully, your brother >> >> Baxter (BC, Canada) >> > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:58 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: 16 subscribers Bahai-faith now has 16 subscribers. I'm still working on getting alt.religion.bahai and the list connected. There a few possibilities. Manually forwarding from one to the other is quite laborious to say the least.... Suggestions? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 16, 1998 8:18 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Bejan is a Bahai T.A. wrote in message <3508BC2D.ECA2C76E@thetable.com>... >If Bahai faith is false then spend your time trying to >prove it rather than this old fashioned tactics and these >silly one liners. Bahais are immune to these stuff, they >have seen much worse. Go read their books which are all over >the web and then go to their newsgroup and prove them wrong. >(take your friends with you :) > >be good >T.A. More than one newsgroup exists on the Bahai Faith. Alt.religion.bahai is nearly a year old, and a new mailing list has just been created: bahai-faith@coollist.com In the best of Bahai traditions, respecting freedom of speech and conscience, they are both open to everyone and unmoderated. All are welcome. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: RE: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Semler, Gretchen To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 6:40 AM Subject: RE: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc >I think what was meant by the name is that it's ABOUT Baha'i Faith, not >that it IS Baha'i Faith. I got it, and I'm new to it. Do you really >think that the people who want to check this out (and are therefore a >small minority of the world populace) are that stupid? I don't. Anyone >who might think that the Baha'i Faith @ Coollist. com is anything other >than a discourse about the ideas of/in/about the faith would quickly be >disabused by reading a couple postings. > >Sincerely, >gsemler > > -----Original Message----- >From: K. Paul Johnson >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:12 PM >Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher > >>It takes cojones, Mr. Anonymous, to get a Hotmail account and call it >Baha'i Faith. Do you realize that everything you post from that >account will be taken by the world (those who don't know any better, >that is) as being official statements? > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:45 AM To: John Walker Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings Talk.religion.misc is a perfectly acceptable place for Bahais to post and discuss whatever they want. It's main shortcoming is that it is not focussed on the Bahai Faith but any miscellaneous religion anyone might care to bring up. Until talk.religion.bahai is passed, it is the only major Big 8 newsgroup that really fits. Feel free to post to it. Other Bahais do. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Walker To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 8:18 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Frederick, I note that you are posting to talk.religion.misc. Is this a >good place for Baha'is (like me) to teach the Faith in or are there other >good newsgroups to teach in? >Great post by the way. > >John Walker >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Sunday, 15 March 1998 23:53 >Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings > > >>fwd >> >>-- >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: LaAeterna >>To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>Date: Sunday, March 15, 1998 7:52 AM >>Subject: Re: Fw: Baha'i teachings >> >>>(I don't have quote capabilities on this little computer so will refer to >>>arguments paraphrastically). >>>Dale's reference to the resurrection as a literal event may, or may not >>>(evidently) be an accurate interpetation. The Bab was also involved in a >>>similar "event," wherein He and Mirza-Muhammad-Ali were tied to the post >>and >>>fired upon by a firing squad; when the smoke cleared, "an astounded >>multitude >>>were looking upon a scene which their eyes could scarcely believe. There, >>>standing before them alive and unhurt, was the companion of the Bab, >whilst >>He >>>himself had vanished uninjured from their sight. Though the cords with >>which >>>they were suspended had been rent in pieces by the bullets, yet their >>bodies >>>has miraculously esacped the volleys...(The Dawnbreakers, p.375). >>>From this, and the reappearance of Christ to His disciples, it is evident >>that >>>God can and does "break" His physical laws if the need arises; we call >>these >>>"miracles" because we don't understand what is going on. The physical >laws >>>may not have actually been broken, of course, but only appear to have been >>by >>>people (us) who really don't understand what they are, but have a >>superficial >>>glimmer of comprehension. Abdul'Baha, in SAQ, states that using >>"miracles" >>>as proof of a Manifestation's reality is invalid, because it is too >>subjective >>>and too prone to being labeled "trickery." We should look at the >*message* >>of >>>the Manifestation and glean our proof from that. I notice He stresses the >>>words "logical" and "reasonable" alot, indicating we are out of the era of >>>"miraculous" proofs and into that of "reason." A hopeful sign for >>humanity. >>>Those who would argue that Baha'u'llah claimed to be the return of Christ, >>and >>>was foretold by Christ, I would point out the quote from Abdul'Baha in BWO >>p. >>>358: >>>" His Holiness Abraham, on Him be peace, made a covenant regarding His >>>Holiness Moses and gave the glad tidings of His coming. His Holiness >Moses >>>made a covenant regarding the Promised One, i.e. His Holiness Christ, and >>>announced the good news of His manifestation to the world. His Holiness >>>Christ made a covenant regarding the Paraclete and gave the tidings of His >>>coming. His Holiness the Prophet Muhammad made a covenant concerning the >>Bab >>>and the Bab was the One promised by Muhammad, for Muhammad gave the glad >>>tidings of His coming..." >>>From this, and the multitude of references in the Iqan, we see that Christ >>>speaks of His return meaning Muhammad, not Baha'u'llah. "Inasmuch as the >>>Christian divines have failed to apprehend the meaning of these words (the >>>signs of the Son of man, etc), and did not recognize their meaning and >>>purpose, and have clung to the literal interpretation of the words of >>Jesus, >>>THEY THEREFORE BECAME DEPRIVED OF THE STREAMING GRACE OF THE MUHAMMEDAN >>>REVELATION and its showering bounties..."(p.26) (insertion mine). >>>My final comment is a reminder of the fact that becoming attached to the >>>personalities of the Manifestations, and insisting upon glorifying one >>above >>>the other, is construed by Baha'u'llah as having no real comprehension of >>>what a Manifestation is. One aspect of God does not overshadow another; >>one >>>Messenger of the Holy Word does not have more import than another: they >are >>>the mouthpieces for God's Word and teach us His Will and in such a sense >>are >>>all above our comprehension. >>>"Inasmuch as the Birds of the Celestial Throne are all sent down from the >>>heaven of the Will of God, and as They all arise to proclaim His >>irresistible >>>faith, they, therefore, are regarded as one soul AND THE SAME PERSON." >>>(Gleanings XXII). >>>'One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this >>respect, >>>if thou callest Them all by one name, and dost ascribe to Them the same >>>attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth.. Even as He hath revealed >>;" >>>No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers..." (ibid). >>>"...should one of these Manifestations of Holiness proclaim saying "I am >>the >>>return of all the Prophets," he, verily, speaketh the truth. In like >>manner, >>>in every subsequent revelation, the return of the former revelation is a >>fact, >>>the truth of which is firmly established." (ibid). >>>Nancy >>> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:50 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i teachings fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Noland Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:31 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i teachings >Howdy Dale, > >I'm not entirely sure what to make of some of this note dale. >The tone of your reply seems to indicate that you think that >you and I have discussed this matter previously. This was my >first contact with you. I get this idea from the statement >"Let me again refresh your memory". If this is a just a >misunderstanding on my part, then my bad and I apologize. >Anyway, I don't mean for this to take away from the >conversation, I just wanted to make sure you're clear that >I'm a new participant. > >I posted the previous message to correct your interpretation of >the text "Some Answered Questions". At that time, your argument >was that there is severe double standard in the Baha'i >interpretation of the Bible. The gist of it was that if Baha'is >reject the literal Resurrection based on it's scientific >impossibility, then it is a contradiction to accept the literal >Virgin Birth since it is also scientifically impossible. > >>Let me consider for a momn=ent that you are correct. We will >assume that >Abdul Baha does not refute the literal Resurrection >>on the grounds of its impossibility. > >The explanation I gave you was absolutely correct. If you >choose not to accept it, that's your prerogative. We will >go forward though and "assume" that Abdul Baha does not >refute the literal Resurrection on the grounds of its >SCIENTIFIC impossibility. > >I will discuss further below> > >>If you wish to argue that Abdul Baha, in Some Answered >>Questions, does NOT argue the necesity of symbolizing the >Resurrection on >scientific grounds, > >Again, I don't wish to argue this. Abdu'l Baha does not propose >that argument as his own. > >>I tend to disagree with your rationale. I believe it seems >>obvious that Abdul's line of reason is that one would be naive >>in the extreme to accept the Resurrection literally because >>it goes against "Science" and reason (according to what he seems >to be >saying). > >Dale, again this is completely wrong. That was a materialist's argument. >Baha'i beliefs are anything but materialistic. > >>But if you are correct, then far more revealingly you strip him >>(and Baha'i theology) of ANY rationale by which the Resurrection >should be >considered symbolic. Within the context of accepting the >Virgin birth, one >cannot decide that the Resurrection "must" be >symbolized simply because it >doesn't seem "reasonable" according >to worldly understanding (science or >intellect). And it ALSO cuts >glaringly against the Bible's clear intentions >to do so (again >according to any honest consideration of context and >intention). > >>The context argument works both ways John. And in this case (if you >are >correct) it builds a stronger case AGAINST reinterpreting the >>Resurrection symbolically. What reasonable rationale would you >present >that would explain why the Resurrection is symbolic, while >the virgin birth >is not? Given your own line of argument I would >submit to you that you have >none that isn't either simply arbitrary, or >guilty of a double standard in >"context" of Baha'i acceptance of >other genuine and literal >>miracles. > >It is my desire to discuss the Resurrection. I will, eventually, >but I feel it's important that you understand some basic Baha'i >theological principles first. I also feel that simply stating >these principles would be a mistake, since you're not likely >to accept them without justification. This puts me in somewhat >of a quandary; I would like to keep this from being an unbearably >long post, but I also want it to be complete. I'll try to keep >it short, if other issues of contention come up we'll discuss >them separately. I hope this is agreeable. > >Baha'is accept the Bible as the Word of God. Our belief is that >throughout eternity there has always been and ever will be only >one Christ. Baha'u'llah is not a replacement for Jesus, but is >the same "spiritual" Christ as Jesus. This view of "only one >Christ" is fully supported by the Bible, as is the view that >Christ is and always has been eternal. This means to us that >Christ was pre-existent to the time of Jesus' Birth. >In your investigation of the Baha'i Faith you've probably >encountered the belief that neither Jesus nor Baha'u'llah >are God, but their relationship to God is analogous to the >sun's reflection in a mirror. In the analogy God is >represented by the sun, the Holy Spirit by the sun's >radiance and Christ by the sun's reflection. If we apply >this analogy to the opening verses of the Gospel of John: >In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, >and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with >God. All things were made by him, and without him was not >any thing made that was made... > > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we >beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the >Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1-3, 14) > >'In the beginning was the Word...' What is a word(literally)? >It is the outward expression of an inward reality or meaning. >To call Christ the Word of God is to say He is an outward >expression of God's inward nature. This is simply another >way of saying He is a mirror image of the invisible Father. > > '...the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' This >suggests that the Word is in one sense distinct from, and >in another sense identical with, God. Paul expresses a similar >thought in Philippians 2:6, where he describes Christ as the >One 'Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to >be equal with God'. The paradox here is resolved by likening >God to the sun and the Word to its reflection. The mirror image, >being in the sun's exact form, is in one sense equal to and >identical with the sun; in another sense, the two are distinct. > > 'The same was in the beginning with God.' The sun's image has >existed as long as the sun itself has existed. Simarly, the Word >- the 'image of the invisible God' - is co-eternal with the >Father. The divine reflection has no beginning in time and will >have no end. > >'All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing >made that was made...' This is one of many scriptures affirming >that Christ, as the pre-existing Word, is the immediate creator >of the cosmos. Paul, for example explains that this 'image of >the invisible God' is 'the firstborn of every creature: For by >him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in >earth...And he is before all things, and by him all things >consist' (Col. 1:15-17). The sun's physical image is the >'firstborn' entity generated by its substance, and it is through >that image that the sun floods the solar system with its light >and power. As the divine reflection, Christ likewise is the >'firstborn of every creature', becoming thereby the agent >through which God's creative power brings into being the >material and spritual universes. > >'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...' The physical >sun does not leave the sky and descend to the earth. The earth >cannot contain the sun for obvious reasons. Its image, however, >can easily appear on earth. Likewise, God's unknowable infinite >Essence, "dwelling in unapproachable light' (1 Tim. 6:16), does >not approach or dwell within the physical universe; for 'the >heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him' (II Chron. 2:6). >It is the divine Word - the 'image of the invisible God' >(Col. 1:15), personified by that "quickening spirit" >(I Cor. 15:45) called Christ - that takes human form to dwell >among us. > > '...and we beheld his glory...' How does the sun 'descend' to >earth? By appearing in a mirror. Paul explains that seeing God >in Christ means "beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord' >(II Cor. 3:18). The 'glass' to which he refers is of course a >looking-glass or mirror. The mirror in which the 'image of the >invisible God' came to be reflected was the human personality >of Jesus of Nazareth. > > '...the glory as of the only begotten of the Father...' The >Bible teaches that Christ was conceived of a virgin through the >power of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, we tend to assume >that His miraculous conception is what makes Him the only >begotten Son of God. Such an assumption, however, raises an >obvious question: As the pre-existent Word or Logos, was He >not already the Son of God before coming to earth via the >womb of his mother, Mary? > > The only possible answer, IMO, is 'yes'. Christ was the Son of >God from all eternity. Paul clearly says so when he calls Christ >the 'firstborn of every creature' (Col. 1:15). We can easily >understand this through the Bible's analogy of Christ as the >image or reflection of God. The sun's image is 'born' >(directly generated) from the sun through its radiance or >energy field; and it is the 'only begotten' child or offspring >born in this direct way - all other effects are indirect or >mediated. Christ, in much the way, was 'born' of God prior >to the creation of heaven and earth, certainly long before >His physical birth in a human body just two thouand years ago. >Does this understanding in any way lessen the importance of >the virgin birth? Of course not! It magnifies that importance >by enabling us to see its underlying spiritual meaning. The >virgin birth is not the cause of Christ's being the Son of >God; it is the result. It is an outward and indeed physical >token of an inward truth. The pre-existent 'quickening spirit' >we call Christ is at all times the only begotten Son - the >reflection or 'express image' - of His invisible heavenly >Father. > >Now on to the Resurrection. The miracle of the resurrection >is a truth which Baha'is AFFIRM with complete conviction. >It constitutes incontrovertible proof of Christ's immortality >and His unfailing redemptive power. > >Since the resurrection is a divine mystery, it is neither >possible nor important for us to understand precisely how it >occurred. We can, however, glean, important insights from >the various Gospel accounts. These suggest that the risen >Christ appeared to His disciples in what some call a >'glorified' body. Such a form apparently is one He can >manifest as He chooses, through either our physical or >spiritual senses. NT writers consistently emphasize the >extraordinary nature of His post-resurrection presence: >The Gospels relate that Christ was crucified and buried; that his >tomb was examined three days later and found empty; and that >shortly thereafter He appeared, alive and well, to His disciples >and certain other followers who saw Him, touched Him, shared >food with Him and heard Him declare: '...it is I myself: >handle me, and see; for a spirit(ghost) hath not flesh and >bones, as ye see me have'. Curiously , even His closest >associated failed to recognize Him during these encounters >except when Christ Himself somehow permitted them to do so. >To two His companions He appeared 'in another form' (Mark 16:2), >though the Bible does not specify what that form was. He came >and went mysteriously, unhindered by obstacles such as walls and >locked doors. Stephen, the first Christian martyr, on his way >to death by stoning, 'looked up steadfastly into heaven, and >saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of >God...' (Acts 7:55). Stephen's experience clearly was a vision, >since apparently none of those around him saw what he saw. Saul >of Tarsus, one of Christianity's deadliest persecutors, became >the inspired Apostle Paul, its greatest missionary, after an >encounter he describes as the last sighting of the resurrected >Jesus: 'And last of all He was seen of me...' (I Cor. 15:8). >What Saul saw on that occasion was not a human form but a >blinding light, which left him 'three days without sight' >(Acts 9:9); he heard a voice say 'Saul, Saul, why persecutest >thou me?' (Acts 9:4); while 'the men who journeyed with him >stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man' (Acts 9:7). > > These Bible accounts depict the resurrection as a reality >with both physical and spiritual ramifications. By thus proving >His own immortality, Christ triumphantly vindicated His offer >of eternal life to all who would accept His salvation. This >raises, however, a crucial question: Is the immortality which >the resurrection demonstrates a physical or a spiritual >immortality? > >One tempting answer might be; 'Christ appeared to His disciples >in physical form. It follows that His immortality, and the >immortality granted to His followers, must also be physical. >It means we will live forever on the earth in material bodies'. >Before leaping to such a conclusion, however, let us explore >a different possibility. Could we not interpret the resurrections >outward manifestations (like those of the virgin birth) as >visible signs of an invisible reality? The virgin birth, as >discussed above, was the physical expression of a metaphysical >truth - of the fact that the pre-existent Word had lived as >the 'firstborn of every creature' and the 'only begotten of >the Father''from of old, from everlating'(Micah 5:2). Since >this first episode of Christ's earthly life testifies to His >spiritual immortality in the past, might we regard its last >episode - His resurrection - as similarly testifying to His >spiritual immortality in the future? > > Baha'is believe the Bible supports this latter view. It >teachesthat the resurrection, in all its earthly and heavenly >aspects ( for there were both), was God's way of demonstrating >Christ's SPIRTIUAL immortality, and, by extension, His power >to confer eternal SPIRITUAL life on those who follow Him. By >'spiritual immortality' and 'eternal spiritual life', I mean >a life in which the physical body as we know it plays no part. >Let's consider Paul's explantion in I Cor. 15:35-50. >(save me some typing and refer to your Bible :) ) > >Paul's commentary, of course, raises new questions even as >it answers old ones. The crucial point here is that 'children >of the resurrection' who inhabit 'that world'(Luke 20:34-5) >live on in a form utterly different from the material bodies >with which we our familiar as 'children of this world' (Luke >20:36). The difference, Paul says, between the 'body that is >sown' (buried in the ground) and the 'body that will be' is >at least as vast as the difference between an ungerminated >grain of wheat and the ripened sheat which rises from it. The >'heavenly body' of the resurrection is no longer a 'natural', >'perishable', 'flesh and blood' body made from the 'dust of >the earth' but an indestrucible 'spiritual body' in 'the >likeness of the man from heaven'. > >This last point is paticularly significant. Far from making >Him an exception to this rule, Paul cites Christ ('the man >from heaven') as its chief example and illustration. He >thereby implies that Christ, at an appropriate time and >in some manner God chose not to reveal, traded His earthly >body for a more befitting spiritual form - one with greatly >enhanced powers. > >Since the Bible does not say when this exchange took place, >the realization that it did occur need not conflict with >Christ's statement that He appeared to His disciples with >'flesh and bone'. We may find, however, that it clashes at >first with our own deeply ingrained habits of thought. While >confined on this earthly plane, we experience reality mostly >through our bodily senses. This predisposes us to think of >'spirit' as less than matter - as something illusory, uncertain, >ephemeral. Solid matter, in contrast, appears reassuringly >stable and powerful. Given such conditioning, we recoil from >the idea that the Lord Christ might be 'reduced' to 'mere' >spirit. > >The Bible shows, however, that this is an all-too-human way of >looking at things is misleading. God is spirit; and the >glorious reality of Christ also is a 'quickening spirit'. >It is the latter who - as the mediator of God's power - >creates both the physical and spiritual universes, >'sustaining all things by His powerful word'. This was true >at the dawn of creation, and it is still true; the resurrection >changed nothing in this respect. All that exists - oceans and >mountains, heaven and hell, whatever lies between - does so >at His command. Our own material existence, our very flesh >and bone, are expressions of His primal Will. If His all- >embracing power were withheld for less than a nanosecond, >we would vanish. > >An omnipotent being of this order surely can reveal Himself >to us in whatever way best suits His purpose: either >through our spiritual faculties, or - just as easily - >through our physical senses, in a form we would register >as visible, audible and tangible. Yet doing so would not >make Him less intrisically spiritual; it would not confine >Him to the earthly plane or require that He maintain an >earthly form at all times. The divine Source of both matter >and spirit must be something more than either (as we ordinarily >think of them). He cannot be 'MERELY' anything. >It is in terms of this 'something more' that we must seek >the real intent of Christ's statement concerning 'flesh >and bones'. When the risen Lord visited His disciples, they >were 'affrighted', thinking they had see 'a ghost'. Ghosts, >then as now, were thought of as flimsy things, not altogether >real - evil omens, perhaps, or figments of a troubled >imagination. Christ assured His disciples that He was >absolutely real and alive, that He was the same Christ >He had always been: 'A ghost does not have flesh and >bones, as you see I have'. This statement does not deny >Christ's essential nature as that transcendent 'Lord who >is the Spirit' (II Cor. 3:18). It simply demonstates (among >other things) that One who manifest worlds and galaxies with >but a thought can also manifest to our senses a palpable >image of His human form - without limiting Himself to that >form. > >If asked 'Does Christ have a physical body today?', the >answer would be, 'Only when He wants one'. The Bible makes >it quite clear, however, that He normally would have no >reason to want one. Paul and his contemporaries clearly >thought of 'being with Christ' as a spirtual experience; >'whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the >Lord', the Apostle explains, adding that Christians should >therfore be 'willing rather to be absent from the body, >and present with the Lord' (II Cor. 5:6, 8). Since Paul >tells us that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom >of God', and Christ is appointed Heir to that Kingdom as >well as of 'all things' (Heb. 1:2), it follows that flesh >and blood is a liability He no longer needs. The author of >Hebrews confirms this by reffering in the past tense to >Christ's earthly life as 'the days of His flesh' (Heb. 5:7). >such a reference can only mean that by the time this verse >was revealed, He was no longer in the flesh anywhere, either >on earth or in heaven. > >If we take the Bible verses at face value (as Baha'is do), >then it is logical to ask what Christ did with His earthly >body once it had served His purpose. This, however, is a >question the Bible seems not to answer. It does no say >whether the risen Saviour abandoned His original body, >destroyed it or (as some suggest) transformed and glorified >it. Does this make any difference? We know that the timeless >Word of God, with or without a material body, is all-powerful, >ever-present and eternally alive. This is the glorious and >undeniable reality of the resurrection. > >Now, I'll finish up with the nature of Christ's ascension to >heaven, which Baha'is also accept and affirm. This event is >described in the first chapter of Acts and discussed in several >other parts of the New Testament. Some Christians see the >ascension as proof that Christ's body still exists beyond the >clouds, preparing to 're-enter' the earth's atmosphere like >an orbiting rocket. Other believe He ascended physically but >then changed to a non-corporeal state. Still others (including >most Baha'is) view the ascension itself as a transition occuring >on the invisible spritiual plane. Close inspection of shows why >the Bible narrative lends itself to such a wide range of >interpretations. > >Acts records that to His disciples Christ "showed himself alive >after his passion by may infallible proofs, being seen of them >forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom >of God' (Acts 1:3). Promising them the power of the Holy Spirit, >He charged them to 'be witness unto me... unto the uttermost >part of the earth' (Acts 1:8). The account continues: > >And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he >was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. > And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he >went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; >Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why ye gazing up into >heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you >into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen >him go into heaven(Act 1:9-11). > >This passage does not say that Christ rose physically into >the sky. It say He was 'taken up... into heaven', which is >not necessarily the same thing. We already know from the >Bible that 'heaven' does not always eman the sky. The >materialistic interpretation suffers in this case from >a serious flaw: It offers no explanation for the odd >question posed by the two (presumably angelic) beings >described as men 'in white apparel'. > >The question is straightforward: 'Why stand ye gazing up >into heaven?' (Acts 1:11). Why, indeed - or rather, why not? >If a materialistic view of the ascension is correct, this >question makes little sense. Let's put ourselves in the place of >Christ's disciples. Watching in stunned awe, we have just seen >our Redeemer leave the ground and float into the sky, >suspended by an unseen force, gradually disappearing smaller >and smaller and finally vanishing in the mist. How should >we behave in such extraordinary circumstances? What constitutes >a normal human reaction? Well, I know what I would do: I would >stare up after Him, struggling to keep Him in sight as long as >possible. Even if I could ignore the perferctly natural >astonishment any sane person would feel under such circumstances, >I could not ignore the wrenching realization that this would >probably be my last glimpse (in this earthly lifetime) of my >beloved Lord and Master. Knowing that much, I would fight >all the angels of heaven and all the demons of hell for that >last, sweet, lingering look. Nor do I believe than any >Christian on earth would do otherwise. > >However, the sharp question - 'Why stand ye gazing up into >heaven?' - strongly suggests that 'gazing up' was in this >instance inappropriate. Let us therefore consider a less >conventional explanation: Christ's post-resurrection presence >among His disciples lasted for forty days, until 'a cloud >received him out of their sight', meaning they suddenly >sensed He was no longer among them. The cloud in this case >represents the confusion, uncertainty and dismay that the >disciples must have felt. While they sought to pentrate the >cloud (i.e. to understand Christ's mysterious departure), the >Saviour Himself was being invisibly 'taken up' to the same >spiritual heaven from which His immortal reality had 'descended' >into His mother's womb. The disciples, even at this late date, >still suffered from their human tendency to misinterpret His >'language of revelation' as 'earthly speech'. Having heard Him >speak often of His ascension, they scanned the skies for some >clue to His disappearance. The angels then chided them for their >failure to grasp the inner reality. The meaning of the verse above, >in this context, is not that Christ will return physically from >sky. It is that His Second Coming will take place under the same >'cloudy' circumstances as His departure - a cloud, that is, of >confusion, ambiguity and mystery. > >Christ had already hinted that His ascension would test the >spirtual insight of many believers. When the disciples, clinging >to their material frames of reference, struggled with His >statement that He 'came down from heaven', Christ replied: >'Doth this offend you? What and if ye see the Son of man ascend >up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the >flesh profiteth nothing...'(John 6:61-3). We know that 'where >he was before' was not the visible sky, for His body was born >of Mary. It was His innermost reality that was 'with God' and >that 'was God'. The ascension (as Christ's words imply) was the >return of His spirit to its heavenly home. > >Further evidence for a non-material ascension comes from these >words of Christ: 'And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but >he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in >heaven' (John 3:13). This verse shows that heavenly ascent and >descent are parallel actions, either of which Christ can >undertake without leaving heaven at all. We can understand >this easily in terms of the Divine Reflection analogy. When >the sun shines in a mirror its image has in one sense >'descended' from the sky - yet both the sun and its image, in >another sense, remain in the sky. When the mirror ceases to >reflect the sun, the image 'ascends' to the sky, not as a >bird or an airplane would ascend but simply in the sense that >we no must turn to the sky in order to continue seeing it. >When the divine Word ('the image of the invisible God') appeared >in its earthly mirror (the earthly temple of Jesus), this >constitutes it true descent from the heaven of God's presence. >When the Word ceased to shine in that same physical lamp, this >constituted its true ascension. Whether this inward reality had >an outward, visible counterpart is of no importance; 'It is >the spirit that quickeneth; the the flesh profiteth nothing' >(John 6:63). > >I guess I've utterly failed in my goal of keeping this short. >Sorry. I'll go now. > >Thanks, >John > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:51 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Robert Henderson & Abortion fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 2:45 PM Subject: Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >Even if the House never had taken a stand on abortion (it has--against), >this seems like a convenient rationalization. I could use the same >rationalization to say that murder is allowed, since the UHJ never made >any laws against it, and Baha'u'llah did not find it necessary to make >another law specifying that it was not allowed. But the 10 commnandments >were never abrogated by any of the Manifestations. > >Since Abdul'Baha said that the human soul begins at conception, nothing >else is needed to establish that abortion is not allowed, unless you >do not accept Abdul'Baha's words. Those words immediately put abortion >in the same category as the taking of any human life. > >Andree > >In article <6ehvgp$93t$1@news.goodnet.com>, > "Alma " wrote: >> >> I looked in vain for the name of Baha'u'llah in this message. After all it >> was he who founded the religion and gave the laws. So far as I know, >> Baha'u'llah never wrote about abortion. And I think that the Universal House >> of Justice, which has the ability to pass laws when there is nothing in the >> sacred writings, has not passed any laws on abortion. Therefore it is the >> woman who must decide what she should do in her particular case. >> >> In peace, >> Alma >> zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <6eh357$jjq$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >Hmm....pots and kettles, motes and beams? It seems to me that Darrick >> hasn't >> >rejected the spirit of the Baha'i faith, but, seeing something wrong with >> the >> >body, has stood up to say something. If a Baha'i's interpretations are in >> >direct conflict with what the Guardian or Abdul Baha has said, who is >> right? >> >Should people passively accept the leadership of people who don't know or >> >accept the Guardian's own words? Should we remain unaware of this? >> > >> >In article <01bd4ffa$37c02700$268859d1@default>, >> > "Hiram" wrote: >> >> >> >> Darrick >> >> >> >> Do you suppose that by publicly taking the privilege of evaluating the >> >> spiritual and moral nature of another human being (Dr. Henderson to be >> >> precise) you are placing yourself above him morally? And, are you of the >> >> opinion that you are justified in rejecting the Baha'i Faith in total, >> and >> >> all of the world wide administration because you are personally unhappy >> >> with your perception of another Baha'is attitudes and actions, even if >> you >> >> are correct in your interpretation? And, are you of the opinion that the >> >> Baha'i Faith will be damaged and thus have to sit up and reevaluate >> itself >> >> because you, in all your pride and glory, have chosen to remove yourself >> >> from the cause? >> >> >> > >> >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:52 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Accusations, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 10:12 AM Subject: Accusations, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >On Sun, 15 Mar 1998 11:30:57 -0600, zutetflute@aol.com wrote: > >>Should people passively accept the leadership of people who don't know or >>accept the Guardian's own words? Should we remain unaware of this? > >In my opinion, such accusations should not be raised in a public forum >such as this. There are appropriate administrative channels for >Baha'is to follow. They do not include any Usenet newsgroup. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:52 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Laws of the Bab, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 10:12 AM Subject: Laws of the Bab, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >On Mon, 16 Mar 1998 00:26:12 -0600, darricke@hotmail.com wrote: > >>Dear Alma, >> Baha'u'llah didn't HAVE to say anything about abortion, unless He wanted to >>abrogate the Law of The Bab; which forbade it! What is not abrogated, remains! >>Darrick Evenson > >I'm not sure about that last statement. I seem to recall seeing on >soc.religion.bahai that the laws of the Bab, unless they were >specifically confirmed by Baha'u'llah, were no longer in force. > >I'm not saying this to say that the teachings on abortion changed; I'm >just pointing out that such a general statement may not be warranted. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 7:53 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Laws of the Bab, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 5:59 AM Subject: Re: Laws of the Bab, was Re: Robert Henderson & Abortion >In article <6eksp2$uj5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >> >>. Shoghi Effendi and the House said >> that elective abortions were "absolutely forbidden in the Cause". What are >> they basing this on? >> Darrick Evenson >> > >Perhaps we have a problem with vocabulary. When I think of "elective >abortions" I think of using abortion as a means of birth control and family >planning. I can't speak for everyone, but I personally know of no one in the >Baha'i Faith that would think of such a thing. > >I can't find the letter right now, but the only letter from the House of >Justice I can think of that speaks directly of abortion in today's society >talks about life being sacred and until a formal ruling is made a woman must >seek guidance from the Baha'i writings and the advice of a doctor. > >In my opinion this leaves the only option for abortion one where the life of >the mother, the child, or both are in danger. This decision is then between >the individual and God and not subject to the opinion of anyone else. > >I'm sorry Darrick, but I just cannot agree with your interpretation that the >Baha'i Faith is suggesting abortion is alright. > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: Re: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc >-----Original Message----- >From: Semler, Gretchen >To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 6:40 AM >Subject: RE: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc > >>I think what was meant by the name is that it's ABOUT Baha'i Faith, not >>that it IS Baha'i Faith. I got it, and I'm new to it. Do you really >>think that the people who want to check this out (and are therefore a >>small minority of the world populace) are that stupid? I don't. Anyone >>who might think that the Baha'i Faith @ Coollist. com is anything other >>than a discourse about the ideas of/in/about the faith would quickly be >>disabused by reading a couple postings. Actually, Gretchen, bahai@hotmail.com is a different issue, I think.... The person has been posting under a pseudonym for probably about at least ten months. Some people believe he's a troll, stirring up a lot of trouble while hiding his true identity. He must be a Bahai, though, since he was subscribed to bahai-discuss, a BCCA list, last fall. Paul Johnson below was referring, I believe, to all of that, not to bahai-faith@coollist.com. I am I misunderstanding you? >> >>Sincerely, >>gsemler >> >> -----Original Message----- >>From: K. Paul Johnson >>Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >>Date: Friday, March 13, 1998 12:12 PM >>Subject: Re: First Church of Baha'i Glaysher >> >>>It takes cojones, Mr. Anonymous, to get a Hotmail account and call it >>Baha'i Faith. Do you realize that everything you post from that >>account will be taken by the world (those who don't know any better, >>that is) as being official statements? >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> Superior connectivity. World class hosting. >> >> Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 8:10 AM Subject: Re: connecting www.coollist.com to alt.religion.bahai Alan Schwartz wrote in message <6ejgh0$4cdg$1@piglet.cc.uic.edu>... >Frederick Glaysher writes: >>I would like to connect or have an email echo of some sort between >>a mailing list and an alt.* hierarchy newsgroup. Is that possible? >>Anyone know how to do it? > >To do this with any kind of efficiency, you need to be (or have the >cooperation of) a news administrator (so you can pipe incoming >news in the group to the mailing list), and you have to arrange >for mailing list messages to be posted to the newsgroup -- while >avoiding a loop. It's possible (indeed, it's done all the time), >but probably not if you're running from coollist.com, unless they >explicitly support this and will set it up for you. I've written the coollist.com administrator a few days ago. It may take a few weeks to hear anything back. In the meantime, I'd like to explore alternative possibilities should they not be able to connect the two. Would you know of anything else that might work? > >Note that the mailing list members may not want to be gatewayed >to USENET, or vice versa, as well. > >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Alan Schwartz | Disclaimer: I represent no one > | >Asst. Prof. of Clinical Decision Making | Life is what happens to you while >University of Illinois at Chicago | you're busy making other plans >Department of Medical Education | - J. Lennon >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 8:11 AM Subject: Re: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc TK wrote in message <6eme28$ot@drn.newsguy.com>... >Fred, could you set up your mailing list so that when we receive submittals from >these people, the posts are credited to the sender? (i.e. the "Author" or >"From" header specifies who it really is from) The current format is somewhat >confusing. I've noticed that too but don't know how to fix it. Suggestions? I can't manually change From each time. It would be too labor intensive. Do you mean in the Reply-To? I'm trying to put Fw at the beginning of each subject line consistently so that they can be differentiated from my own posts. Obviously, this would be one of the benefits of having the two automatically connected. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <"qQNnG.A.4I.kzNC1"@bounty>... >K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <"lxgao.A.qCE.LeEB1"@bounty>... > >>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>over 1400, and is now under 1200. > >Are these figures accurate? Can anyone confirm both of them? Well, what is the current number of LSAs? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 1:47 PM To: Star Saffa Subject: Re: subscribing I believe Bill Hyman gave me your email below with which I subscribed you. I apparently did it from memory and gave you an extra "a." I'll fix it immediately. Let me know if you don't begin receiving messages soon. Sorry for the delay. starjo@aracha.net.au Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, March 17, 1998 11:43 PM Subject: Fw: subscribing >FREDRICK - I still am receiving NO posts from coollist - please fix it up - >thanx, Star* > >---------- >> From: Star Saffa >> To: FG@hotmail.com >> Subject: subscribing >> Date: Saturday, March 14, 1998 6:50 AM >> >> Hello - I want to subscribe to the bahai'faith@coolllist and need to be >> placed on the mailing list so I can post to it and receive mail - would >you >> please sign me up. Thank you. >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:18 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: members 16 again davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:40 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Abortion & The Law of God Series fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, March 19, 1998 12:05 AM Subject: Abortion & The Law of God Series > This is to announce that the *Abortion & The Law of God* series, started on >soc.religion.bahai, will now be produced on alt.religion.bahai. The moderators >did not feel--and I agreed with them--that posts on abortion in other >religions was directly relevant to the Baha'i Faith. So, I will reproduce the >series, in it's entirety, here. The posts will include: > >1) Abortion & The Law of God (Sabeanism) >2) Abortion & The Law of God (Hinduism) >3) Abortion & The Law of God (Judaism) >4) Abortion & The Law of God (Zoroastrianism) >5) Abortion & The Law of God (Buddhism) >6) Abortion & The Law of God (Christianity) >7) Abortion & The Law of God (Islam) >8) Abortion & The Law of God (Babism) >9) Abortion & The Law of God (Baha'i Faith) >10) Abortion & The Law of God (Humanism) >11) Abortion & The Law of God (Conclusion) >12) Abortion & The Law of God (Bibliography) > > The pupose of this series is to address the subject of abortion in all of >the World Religions recognized as having a divine origin by the Baha'i Faith. >This seris is not copywrited, and people are encouraged to print it out, >reproduce it, and distribute it in any form. > This series was created because of the FACT that--nothwithstanding the >declarations of the Guardian and the Universal House of Justice--many Baha'is >believe that the Faith is (by one word or another) "Pro-Choice", or that >abortion is not an important subject nor a high priority. > Those who have already sent me their mailing addresses, for a hard copy of >this series, will be mailed a hard copy via regular mail. >Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:41 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc fw (my apologies if I fwd this before) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, March 18, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: Re: posting from alt.religion.baha'i; talk.religion.misc >TK wrote in message <6eme28$ot@drn.newsguy.com>... >>Fred, could you set up your mailing list so that when we receive submittals >from >>these people, the posts are credited to the sender? (i.e. the "Author" or >>"From" header specifies who it really is from) The current format is >somewhat >>confusing. > > >I've noticed that too but don't know how to fix it. Suggestions? I can't >manually >change From each time. It would be too labor intensive. Do you mean in the >Reply-To? > >I'm trying to put Fw at the beginning of each subject line consistently so >that >they can be differentiated from my own posts. > >Obviously, this would be one of the benefits of having the two automatically >connected. > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:46 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: new Bahai mailing list may be in the offing Although there are now 16 members on Coollist.com, it has been a little slow to use and still is not connected to alt.religion.bahai. The interface for adding and deleting people as they come and go is extremely tedious. An auto connection would solve that kind of thing.... It appears another server may offer a better home before long.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Re: Starting a Mailing list >Try https://www.coollist.com - they're quite good, providing you >don't mind the four-line advert added to all list-mail. Does anyone know of any other mailing list service like coollist.com? Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 8:10 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: membership list? This message is to coollist.com only. There are now 16 members subscribed to this list. Talisman and other mailing lists regularly or occasionally post a list of subscribers so that everyone knows who belongs to it. Would you like me to do that? Unless I hear otherwise, I'll assume it's acceptable to do so since it's a common practice on lists. It will not be posted to alt.religion.bahai, unless all of you think it should be. I can't think of why that would be though. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 8:26 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Welcome message coollist.com is supposed to send new subscribers a welcome message. Has anyone received one? I'd appreciate it if someone would post a copy of it to the list so that I can see what it looks like and be sure people are getting one. Make that 17 subscribers.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 8:31 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: new list suggestions? As a new mailing list, a little over a week old, bahai-faith@coollist.com still has some bugs in it. I'm wondering how others feel about my manually forwarding messages. I'll try to remember to put "fw" always at the beginning of the subject line if it's not automatically inserted but it's easy to forget or overlook.... Tolerance and patience, please.... Any suggestions on anything at this point? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: free websites? I'd like to create a website on free speech and religious conscience and the Bahai Faith/talk.religion.bahai. Anyone know of a good free website service other than geocities.com? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 7:38 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Writings of E.G. Browne fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, March 19, 1998 8:04 PM Subject: Writings of E.G. Browne >Do any Baha'is out there have a book titled *Selections from the Writings of >Edward Granville Browne* by Momen? If you do, then PLEASE contact me! Thank >you. >Darrick Evenson >darricke@hotmail.com > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 7:47 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Enemy and liar? FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 20, 1998 12:36 AM Subject: Enemy and liar? >In a recent post, Rich Schaut argues that anyone who wishes for >change in aspects of the Baha'i Faith is by virtue of that fact >an enemy of the Faith, since if it changed it wouldn't be the >Baha'i Faith any more. By that logic, I'd be an enemy of Cuba >for wanting change in Castro's repression, an enemy of >Catholicism for wanting the Pope to change his mind on birth >control, ad infinitum. It's not just a misuse of language but an >abuse of the person so named to use "enemy" in such a way. To >mention two aspects I'd most like to see change in Baha'i, I propose >this question: what if the Universal House of Justice were to >declare tomorrow that 1) on reconsideration of source texts it >was decided that women would be eligible for election to the >House in the next election and 2) the policy of literature review >would be immediately abolished? These would be major changes, >the most positive ones I can imagine. Would they make the Baha'i Faith >*not the Baha'i Faith anymore*, and make the House an "enemy?" >He also argues that if one does not accept every jot and tittle >of the Baha'i Faith, one has thereby "rejected the Faith." But >would he be comfortable with my accusing him of rejecting >Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. by the very same >logic? I hope not. "Enemy" and "reject" are extremely >polarizing, destructive, scapegoating words and categories to >apply to followers of other religions who don't see your own >quite the way you do. The greatest wish I have for Baha'is is >that such rhetoric becomes far less prevalent within their ranks. > >Bruce Limber accuses me of using statistics in order to lie, but >does not specify the lie in question. The only conclusion I drew >from the statistics about numbers of new members of world >religions in the past century and a half was that "Christianity >does not appear to be losing any ground." I might have added the >same to be true of Islam and Hinduism. He then says that the >true comparison would be in percentage growth rates. But that >kind of comparison favors smaller groups over larger. If >Christianity had grown by the same percentage in this century >as Baha'i, Christians would have far exceeded the total >population of the earth. Clearly, the larger a group is the flatter >the growth curve is likely to be. By contrast, if one were to compare the >Scientologists, growing tenfold in *thirty* years, to the Baha'is, >it would make the former look much more vital and thriving. And >even more striking, let's hypothesize that Joseph Emmanuel has gone from one >follower to 75 in the last five years. Gee! With a 7500 per >cent growth rate he's bound to take over the world soon! >Percentage growth rates tell *part* of the story. Raw numbers of >new members tell *part* of the story. Some people want to focus >only on the part that makes their particular group appear in its >best light. All I want to do is to point out parts of the >picture that are ignored by those who portray Christianity as a >dying or declining religion, which it emphatically is not. > >Back to Rich Schaut's comments which I deem personal attacks on >unnamed targets. He accused these persons of wishing to be >quasi-official interpreters of the Baha'i writings and to force their >interpretations on all the Baha'is in the world. On what basis >does he make this accusation? He observed them discussing their >own points of view, and arguing for them, on an academic Internet >discussion group. The scholars he so accuses may well have wished for >a respectful *hearing* of their arguments in Haifa and Wilmette. But that >is a far cry from *demanding* that the Institutions and all Baha'is *submit* >to their own interpretations, which is an accusation so extreme as to >be laughable were it not so widely believed. I certainly did >not, in my Gnosis article, provide any evidence whatsoever that >would justify such an attack on the people in question. There is >no such evidence to the best of my knowledge. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 7:56 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 17 members cytd@musica.mcgill.ca davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 8:02 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: list of members A member has stated a preference for not disclosing his or her identity. I don't really understand why. Talisman (a Bahai list) regularly does so. What possible motives could exist for not wanting to let others know you're subscribed? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: Enemy and liar? FYI -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: K. Paul Johnson Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 20, 1998 12:36 AM Subject: Enemy and liar? >In a recent post, Rich Schaut argues that anyone who wishes for >change in aspects of the Baha'i Faith is by virtue of that fact >an enemy of the Faith, since if it changed it wouldn't be the >Baha'i Faith any more. By that logic, I'd be an enemy of Cuba >for wanting change in Castro's repression, an enemy of >Catholicism for wanting the Pope to change his mind on birth >control, ad infinitum. It's not just a misuse of language but an >abuse of the person so named to use "enemy" in such a way. To >mention two aspects I'd most like to see change in Baha'i, I propose >this question: what if the Universal House of Justice were to >declare tomorrow that 1) on reconsideration of source texts it >was decided that women would be eligible for election to the >House in the next election and 2) the policy of literature review >would be immediately abolished? These would be major changes, >the most positive ones I can imagine. Would they make the Baha'i Faith >*not the Baha'i Faith anymore*, and make the House an "enemy?" >He also argues that if one does not accept every jot and tittle >of the Baha'i Faith, one has thereby "rejected the Faith." But >would he be comfortable with my accusing him of rejecting >Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. by the very same >logic? I hope not. "Enemy" and "reject" are extremely >polarizing, destructive, scapegoating words and categories to >apply to followers of other religions who don't see your own >quite the way you do. The greatest wish I have for Baha'is is >that such rhetoric becomes far less prevalent within their ranks. > >Bruce Limber accuses me of using statistics in order to lie, but >does not specify the lie in question. The only conclusion I drew >from the statistics about numbers of new members of world >religions in the past century and a half was that "Christianity >does not appear to be losing any ground." I might have added the >same to be true of Islam and Hinduism. He then says that the >true comparison would be in percentage growth rates. But that >kind of comparison favors smaller groups over larger. If >Christianity had grown by the same percentage in this century >as Baha'i, Christians would have far exceeded the total >population of the earth. Clearly, the larger a group is the flatter >the growth curve is likely to be. By contrast, if one were to compare the >Scientologists, growing tenfold in *thirty* years, to the Baha'is, >it would make the former look much more vital and thriving. And >even more striking, let's hypothesize that Joseph Emmanuel has gone from one >follower to 75 in the last five years. Gee! With a 7500 per >cent growth rate he's bound to take over the world soon! >Percentage growth rates tell *part* of the story. Raw numbers of >new members tell *part* of the story. Some people want to focus >only on the part that makes their particular group appear in its >best light. All I want to do is to point out parts of the >picture that are ignored by those who portray Christianity as a >dying or declining religion, which it emphatically is not. > >Back to Rich Schaut's comments which I deem personal attacks on >unnamed targets. He accused these persons of wishing to be >quasi-official interpreters of the Baha'i writings and to force their >interpretations on all the Baha'is in the world. On what basis >does he make this accusation? He observed them discussing their >own points of view, and arguing for them, on an academic Internet >discussion group. The scholars he so accuses may well have wished for >a respectful *hearing* of their arguments in Haifa and Wilmette. But that >is a far cry from *demanding* that the Institutions and all Baha'is *submit* >to their own interpretations, which is an accusation so extreme as to >be laughable were it not so widely believed. I certainly did >not, in my Gnosis article, provide any evidence whatsoever that >would justify such an attack on the people in question. There is >no such evidence to the best of my knowledge. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 20, 1998 8:10 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Does it work? A member has mentioned not receiving ANY messages from this list. I'd appreciate it if any of you who actually receive this send me a short reply to confirm this thing is working.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 7:49 AM To: John Whitbrandt Subject: Re: Does it work? >Works fine, I've been getting quite a few messages, most of them administrative though. > > >...John Thanks for letting me know. Sorry so much has been on the administrative side. Feel free to start a thread on something substantive. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 8:02 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 18 cytd@musica.mcgill.ca davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org fglaysh@hotmail.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 8:04 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: too administrative I apologize that so much of the posts thus far have been as someone has said to me largely on the administrative side.... It's just taken a lot of effort to get this list up and running. How about somebody start a substantive thread? Incidentally, an 18th person has subscribed this morning. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 12:29 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Returned mail fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: Returned mail >Hi >The most recent post I made to baha'i coollist came bouncing back as a "fatal >error" by AOL. I don't know how to reach Derrick Evanson other than that >response I tried to make. Can you forward to him that I have the book >"Selections from the writings of EG Browne?" Thanks >nancy > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 21, 1998 12:32 PM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: list of members Fair point of view. Doesn't address the fact that most lists share the names of their subscribers, e.g., talisman, a Bahai list.... Are people here only to lurk? Nothing rhetorical? It's a serious question. One I don't feel is yet sufficiently answered. I'd like to hear from others. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Todd Lawson To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: Re: list of members >Didn't you pose the question in the first place? Whoever did must have >considered it a reasonable request to not have one's name publicized. Must >we always defend and justify why we wish privacy? >Or is your question rhetorical? > >Todd Lawson > > >>What possible motives could exist for not wanting to let others >>know you're subscribed? >> >>Frederick Glaysher > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:46 AM To: artist@coinet.com Subject: Re: Subscription to Mailing List Follow info below to subscribe! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Carol To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 10:04 PM Subject: Subscription to Mailing List >Dear Fred, > >I am not sure what the new list is but if I am not on it I would like to look in >on it... > >Thankyou, > >Carol Goozey >A Baha'i in Lapine, Oregon..... Happy Na-Ruz to you and yours!!! >-- >"If we pray, we will believe; If we believe, we will love; If we love, we will >serve." -Mother Teresa > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:50 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Year 2000 Shoghi Effendi's writings are full of descriptions of the lesser peace. Most of his books have reliable indexes. It was Abdu'l-Baha who stated it would happen by the end of this century. There does seem to be a certain amount of revision taking place.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Whitbrandt To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 6:47 AM Subject: Year 2000 >Very well, I'll start a thread. I've been puzzled about some Bahai's ideas of what >exactly the Lesser peace is and when it will take place. It seems like up until >a few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means that there will >be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end of the century (by 2001). > It seems that as the year 2001 approaches some bahai's are backing away from this >claim. This troubles me. If there is indeed an end to war by the year 2001, this >would be the first concrete thing that I have ever seen predicted by a religion and >would probably lead me to become a Baha'i. If it dosen't happen, then something >is gravely wrong with the Baha'i Faith. > >Can anybody point me in the direction of where the lesser peace is in the writings? > > >Regards......Jon > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:04 AM To: artist@coinet.com Subject: Re: Subscription to Mailing List On further reflection, I suppose you're asking me to subscribe you? Let me know if you don't have www access, only email, and then I'll be happy to add you to the list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Carol To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 10:04 PM Subject: Subscription to Mailing List >Dear Fred, > >I am not sure what the new list is but if I am not on it I would like to look in >on it... > >Thankyou, > >Carol Goozey >A Baha'i in Lapine, Oregon..... Happy Na-Ruz to you and yours!!! >-- >"If we pray, we will believe; If we believe, we will love; If we love, we will >serve." -Mother Teresa > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:06 AM To: Mark A. Foster Subject: Re: page for your list I'd prefer people only use the standard methods established by the list itself. Thanks, though.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 11:18 AM Subject: page for your list >Frederick - > >I just created a simple page for your list. It will enable >people to subscribe and unsubscribe on their own without >contacting you or going to the Cool List site: > >[https://www.geocities.com/Athens/2327/list.html ] > >Mark Foster > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:08 AM To: LaAeterna Subject: Re: Returned mail The server may have been down at the time. Try again. Others have said it's working fine. AOL blocks some addresses. If you're not receiving most messages, you might want to check with AOL. I forwarded your message to coollist. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, March 21, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: Returned mail >Hi >The most recent post I made to baha'i coollist came bouncing back as a "fatal >error" by AOL. I don't know how to reach Derrick Evanson other than that >response I tried to make. Can you forward to him that I have the book >"Selections from the writings of EG Browne?" Thanks >nancy > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:18 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Year 2000 -----Original Message----- From: John Whitbrandt To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:16 AM Subject: Year 2000 >Very well, I'll start a thread. I've been puzzled about some Bahai's ideas of what >exactly the Lesser peace is and when it will take place. It seems like up until >a few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means that there will >be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end of the century (by 2001). > It seems that as the year 2001 approaches some bahai's are backing away from this >claim. This troubles me. If there is indeed an end to war by the year 2001, this >would be the first concrete thing that I have ever seen predicted by a religion and >would probably lead me to become a Baha'i. If it dosen't happen, then something >is gravely wrong with the Baha'i Faith. > >Can anybody point me in the direction of where the lesser peace is in the writings? You might also find interesting the 1923 edition of Baha'u'llah and the New Era by Esslemont. In it, Abdu'l-Baha predicts the lesser peace would come in 1957.... > > >Regards......Jon > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:27 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Year 2000 Actually, in my opinion, the lesser peace has already been established, and we know the exact date and time and place.... January, 1992, at the major summit meeting of world leaders when the documents were signed providing the UN with further military responsibilities on behalf of all nations and committing each member state to uphold the agreement.... We human beings expect the heavens to open.... In the perspective of history, I believe that will come to be seen as the defining moment of world peace.... It laid the groundwork, extended it.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:28 AM Subject: fw Year 2000 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Whitbrandt To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Year 2000 >Very well, I'll start a thread. I've been puzzled about some Bahai's ideas of what >exactly the Lesser peace is and when it will take place. It seems like up until >a few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means that there will >be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end of the century (by 2001). > It seems that as the year 2001 approaches some bahai's are backing away from this >claim. This troubles me. If there is indeed an end to war by the year 2001, this >would be the first concrete thing that I have ever seen predicted by a religion and >would probably lead me to become a Baha'i. If it dosen't happen, then something >is gravely wrong with the Baha'i Faith. > >Can anybody point me in the direction of where the lesser peace is in the writings? > > >Regards......Jon > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:30 AM Subject: Year 2000 From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Year 2000 >Actually, in my opinion, the lesser peace has already been >established, and we know the exact date and time and place.... > >January, 1992, at the major summit meeting of world leaders >when the documents were signed providing the UN with further >military responsibilities on behalf of all nations and committing >each member state to uphold the agreement.... We human >beings expect the heavens to open.... In the perspective of >history, I believe that will come to be seen as the defining >moment of world peace.... It laid the groundwork, extended it.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:31 AM Subject: Year 2000 ----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:18 AM Subject: Re: Year 2000 >-----Original Message----- >From: John Whitbrandt >To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 7:16 AM >Subject: Year 2000 > > >>Very well, I'll start a thread. I've been puzzled about some Bahai's >ideas of what >>exactly the Lesser peace is and when it will take place. It seems like up >until >>a few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means that >there will >>be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end of the century >(by 2001). >> It seems that as the year 2001 approaches some bahai's are backing away >from this >>claim. This troubles me. If there is indeed an end to war by the year >2001, this >>would be the first concrete thing that I have ever seen predicted by a >religion and >>would probably lead me to become a Baha'i. If it dosen't happen, then >something >>is gravely wrong with the Baha'i Faith. >> >>Can anybody point me in the direction of where the lesser peace is in the >writings? > >You might also find interesting the 1923 edition of Baha'u'llah and the >New Era by Esslemont. In it, Abdu'l-Baha predicts the lesser peace >would come in 1957.... > >> >> >>Regards......Jon >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: Re: Enemy and liar? K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <"swRvaD.A.FTH.u9fE1"@bounty>... "Enemy" and "reject" are extremely >polarizing, destructive, scapegoating words and categories to >apply to followers of other religions who don't see your own >quite the way you do. The greatest wish I have for Baha'is is >that such rhetoric becomes far less prevalent within their ranks. You're probably hoping for too much, Paul.... From all appearances, this type of thinking is deeply embedded now in the mindset of many Bahais.... It often appears to me that it's highly unlikely they'll ever be able to free themselves from such things.... More likely it will only worsen as those given to this type of thinking dig in their heels, so to speak, driving out, or into silence, more tolerant Bahais.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 1998 8:44 AM Subject: re Enemies & liars K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <"swRvaD.A.FTH.u9fE1"@bounty>... "Enemy" and "reject" are extremely >polarizing, destructive, scapegoating words and categories to >apply to followers of other religions who don't see your own >quite the way you do. The greatest wish I have for Baha'is is >that such rhetoric becomes far less prevalent within their ranks. You're probably hoping for too much, Paul.... From all appearances, this type of thinking is deeply embedded now in the mindset of many Bahais.... It often appears to me that it's highly unlikely they'll ever be able to free themselves from such things.... More likely it will only worsen as those given to this type of thinking dig in their heels, so to speak, driving out, or into silence, more tolerant Bahais.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:19 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Year 2000 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Barry Gerstner Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 4:06 PM Subject: Re: fw Year 2000 > >>>Very well, I'll start a thread. I've been puzzled about some Bahai's >>ideas of what >>>exactly the Lesser peace is and when it will take place. It seems >like up >>until >>>a few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means >that >>there will >>>be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end of the >century >>(by 2001). >>> It seems that as the year 2001 approaches some bahai's are backing >away >>from this >>>claim. This troubles me. If there is indeed an end to war by the >year >>2001, this >>>would be the first concrete thing that I have ever seen predicted by a >>religion and >>>would probably lead me to become a Baha'i. If it dosen't happen, then >>something >>>is gravely wrong with the Baha'i Faith. > >Baha'is don't know anymore than you do precisely what to expect and >when. Here's an entry from Lights of Guidance which says just this. >Shoghi Effendi's letter saying this was dated 1946--: > > > "It is true that Abdu'l-Baha made statements linking the establishment >of the unity of nations to the twentieth century. For example: `...The >fifth candle is the unity of nations - a unity which, in this century, >will be securely established, causing all the peoples of the world to >regard themselves as citizens of one common fatherland....' And, in >`The Promised Day is Come', following a similar statement quoted from >`Some Answered Questions', Shoghi Effendi makes this comment: `This is >the stage which the world is now approaching, the stage of world unity, >which, as Abdu'l-Baha assures us, will, in this century, be securely >established.' > "There is also this statement from a letter written in 1946 to an >individual believer on behalf of the beloved Guardian by his secretary: > `...All we know is that the Lesser and the Most Great Peace >will > come - their exact dates we do not know. The same is true as >regards the > possibility of a future war; we cannot state dogmatically it will >or will > not take place - all we know is that mankind must suffer and be >punished > sufficiently to make it turn to God.'" > (From a letter of the Universal House of Justice, July 29, >1974: > Ibid.) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Pages: 435-436) > >People seem to be expecting some incredibly obvious dramatic event which >everyone will see and recognize as "The Lesser Peace." But the Lesser >Peace will be established by an organic process: > > "As you are no doubt aware, the Guardian indicated that the development >of mankind from its present chaotic condition to the stage of the Baha'i >World Commonwealth would be a long and gradual one." (Lights of >Guidance, Page: 437) > > > >This process has been going on, I believe, throughout this entire >century. IMO, the establishment of the League of Nations towards the >beginning of this century followed by the establishment of the United >Nations was part of this process. Look around you, and you will see >that slowly but surely, we *are* moving towards world unity on every >level. As for peace, I could be wrong, but I know of no wars going on >in the world at the present between rival nations. This is, I believe, >something new in the world. But I *don't* think the world will be a >particularly peaceful place during the Lesser Peace. In fact, as long >as people are so incredibly materialistic and self-centered, I think >things are just going to get worse: > >"The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face >is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, >that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity >will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall >suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. >Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the >Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody. > (Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, Pages: 118-119) > >Well, the Lesser Peace is a political union of the nations of the >world -- not the unfurling of the Divine Standard. That will be the >coming of The Most Great Peace. > > >As to your question about what the Lesser Peace is: > >"Baha'u'llah's principal mission in appearing at this time in human >history is the realization of the oneness of mankind and the >establishment of peace among the nations; therefore, all the forces >which are focused on accomplishing these ends are influenced by His >Revelation. We know, however, that peace will come in stages. First, >there will come the Lesser Peace, when the unity of nations will be >achieved, then gradually the Most Great Peace - the spiritual as well as >social and political unity of mankind, when the Baha'i World >Commonwealth, operating in strict accordance with the laws and >ordinances of the Most Holy Book of the Baha'i Revelation, will have >been established through the efforts of the Baha'is. > "As to the Lesser Peace, Shoghi Effendi has explained that this >will initially be a political unity arrived at by decision of the >governments of various nations; it will not be established by direct >action of the Baha'i community. This does not mean, however, that the >Baha'is are standing aside and waiting for the Lesser Peace to come >before they do something about the peace of mankind. Indeed, by >promoting the principles of the Faith, which are indispensable to the >maintenance of peace, and by fashioning the instruments of the Baha'i >Administrative Order, which we are told by the beloved Guardian is the >pattern for future society, the Baha'is are constantly engaged in laying >the groundwork for a permanent peace, the Most Great Peace being their >ultimate goal. > "The Lesser Peace itself will pass through stages: at the initial >stage the governments will act entirely on their own without the >conscious involvement of the Faith; later on, in God's good time, the >Faith will have a direct influence on it in ways indicated by Shoghi >Effendi in his `The Goal of a New World Order'. In connection with the >steps that will lead to this latter stage, the Universal House of >Justice will certainly determine what has to be done, in accordance with >the guidance in the Writings, such as the passage you quoted from >`Tablets of Baha'u'llah', page 89. In the meantime, the Baha'is will >undoubtedly continue to do all in their power to promote the >establishment of peace." > (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of >Justice, > January 31, 1985: Ibid.) > (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Pages: 437-438) > > >>>Can anybody point me in the direction of where the lesser peace is in >the >>writings? > >Shoghi Effendi wrote about it in many books: The Citadel of Faith, the >Promised Day is Come, The World Order of Baha'u'llah and God Passes By >among others. There's also a section about it in The Lights of >Guidance. >>> > >Hope this helps. > >Kind regards, > >Suzanne Gerstner >The Hague, The Netherlands > > > > "God's purpose is none other than to usher in, in ways He alone >can bring about, and the full significance of which He alone can fathom, >the Great, the Golden Age of a long-divided, a long-afflicted humanity. >Its present state, indeed even its immediate future, is dark, >distressingly dark. Its distant future, however, is radiant, gloriously >radiant - so radiant that no eye can visualize it. " >Shoghi Effendi > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Who shall see God? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy,alt.christinet.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion. bahai,talk.religion.newage Date: Sunday, March 22, 1998 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Who shall see God? >On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:56:16 -0500, >twenty-four.fighting.chickens@mindspring.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:54:55 GMT, Bishop Jeff Silver wrote: >> >>:We do not need any obscure sanscrit terms to describe sin! >>:God spoke of His laws, not of some obscure "innate nature of things" >> >>God did not speak of any laws. Men wrote claiming that God spoke of >>laws, but there is no evidence that God has endorsed these writings. >> > >How can you say such a thing? Do you question the validity of the >Torah, the Gospel, the Qur'an, the Baha'i Writings, etc.? > >Whenever God has revealed a new Book to guide humanity, He (through >His mouthpieces, the Manifestations of God) has always provided laws >for His servants to abide by. Some Books (notably the Torah and >Qur'an) had more laws than others, but none called for anarchy. > >Followups set. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 1998 7:51 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 19 artist@coinet.com cytd@musica.mcgill.ca davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com zackary@nwi.net You have a total of: 19 users. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:35 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: world religions and numbers >From: Juan Cole >Subject: world religions and numbers [clip] (and the vast majority of Indian 'Baha'is' are actually Hindus who >have added an avatar to the mantel piece). [clip] >The 'five million' includes also 2 million Indian 'Baha'is,' a good 3/4s of >which can be discounted as having signed up thinking they were joining a >club Most Western Bahais are completely unaware of the multiplicity of religious views in India. Hence, the numbers sound good.... The reality is a culture where, as the Upanishads put it, "three hundred and three, and three thousand and three gods," all of whom are "One" exist and are revered and worshipped.... That for a few the Bahai Faith has joined the pantheon of shrines they visit is not necessarily convincing.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: RE: Change, RE: Enemy and liar? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Semler, Gretchen To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:48 AM Subject: RE: Change, RE: Enemy and liar? >I like the logic below--my first impression was also that the Baha'i >Faith seems to have grown, changed, and added to its organization. It >is not the faith it was, and cannot be again, but does that mean that it >isn't the faith anymore? Ridiculous. Might as well say that as I grew >from a child to an adult, I was no longer me. Evolution and improvement >is change, and sometimes is mis-aligned from the ultimate goals, and >sometimes is aligned with the goals. The degree of alignment to the >ultimate goals and values of "Baha'i" would dictate the definition, so >any argument about having it (or any other faith) needing to be static >in order to preserve its ideals is hogwash. Pardon me--it is an >interesting opinion with which I happen to disagree. > >GS ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: fw RE: Year 2000 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Semler, Gretchen To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:50 AM Subject: RE: Year 2000 >>From: John Whitbrandt >> I've been puzzled about some Bahai's ideas of what exactly the >Lesser peace is and when it will take >place. It seems like up until a >few years ago it was generally agreed that the Lesser peace means that >there >will be no more war, period, and this will take place at the end >of the century (by 2001). It seems that as the >year 2001 approaches >some bahai's are backing away from this claim. > > >I got the idea that the "lesser" peace was something that would seem >like peace had arrived, but would be disrupted by another something--be >it war, famine, cataclysm, whatever. The greater peace is IMO the real >McCoy, from which point there will be no more wars (between members of >mankind). I say it that way because I am not willing to decide for >myself whether I believe that Man is alone in the universie or not, >largely due to lack of evidence for or against. But that's another >thread. > >As far as Baha'i ideas of when and where and what the lesser or greater >peace is, I haven't heard much, so if you can find any people quoted, >I'd be interested to see their veiwpoint. Mine mostly comes from the >Bible, and from Christian, Catholic and Jewish friends. They all seem >to agree about one thing--that nobody is supposed to know the hour of >the last war.... so I don't really see how this can be predicted with >pinpoint accuracy. Anyone out there have any ideas, quotes, etc? > >GS > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:54 AM Subject: fw RE: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: RE: Year 2001 >Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >this subject will only become clear over the course of time. > >On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >hand, I >believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >"thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >Most >Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). > >I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >reaches a particular stage of development, wars will cease. It >might yet happen in the twentieth century. Who knows? >Personally, I have a very poor record of predicting these >things! > >The confusion, in my opinion, derives from our tendency to see >most things in terms of linear time. Some of the friends took >the same approach with regard to the issue of the Guardianship >and the meaning of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament (lesser >Covenant) after the death of Shoghi Effendi. > >When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >House >of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >planes >of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! > >Yet, in the West, we sometimes become attached to our >particular >conceptions of linearity. We often perceive contradiction as >problematic rather than as liberating and transforming (like a >Zen koan). However, such a restrictive framework is far >removed, >in my view, from the more Sufic model of time which is >frequently found in the Baha'i Teachings. > >Has the Lesser Peace already started? Will peace actually be a >evident in the next few years? My own view is that the Lesser >Peace became realized with the issuance of the Promise of World >Peace, by the Universal House of Justice. > >To me, the Promise of World Peace was the beginning, in a >sense, >of the Lesser Peace. The power released into the world to >fulfill that message was proportional to its content. And so >many remarkable changes have taken place since that time. > >Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >(913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 8:02 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Year 2001 From: Mark A. Foster >When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >House >of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >planes >of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace is already upon us, if you will.... The major powers have signed the essential documents.... We await merely the convulsions of history to realize the fullness of their implications.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 8:03 AM Subject: re Peace 200001 From: Mark A. Foster >When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >House >of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >planes >of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace is already upon us, if you will.... The major powers have signed the essential documents.... We await merely the convulsions of history to realize the fullness of their implications.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: re Peace 200001 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Abir Majid Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 11:56 AM Subject: Re: re Peace 200001 >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> From: Mark A. Foster >> >> >When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >> >House >> >of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >> >completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >> >Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >> >planes >> >of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! >> >> It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace >> is already upon us, ... > >It's really nice to talk about issues other than voting for T.R.B. > >Keep up the good work. Thanks. >-- >------------------------------------------------ >Abir Majid >https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >e-mail: abirm@geocities.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Carl Allen Brehmer wrote in message <"SK9eTB.A.FQ.fg-F1"@bounty>... > >>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>over 1400, and is now under 1200. >In the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of "paper >LSAs." You haven't answered the question: how many are there now.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 9:03 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: Re: A CALL TO ARMS As a former Catholic, permit me to observe that there are already many Jesuits in the Bahai Faith.... They seem fairly well organized right now.... I think of Julien Sorel adjusting his miter in the mirror.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: S. Michele Smith[SMTP:smsmith@cybertrails.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:12 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Dear Mr. Glaysher, Thank you for your submission. However, as it is a personal message and does not further the discussion, I am returning it to you unposted. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc-religion-bahai ---------- From: FG To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 5:29 AM Carl Allen Brehmer wrote in message <"SK9eTB.A.FQ.fg-F1"@bounty>... > >>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>over 1400, and is now under 1200. >In the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of "paper >LSAs." You haven't answered the question: how many are there now.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: fw Re: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rmsolem@mke.ab.com To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 6:12 AM Subject: Re: Year 2001 >Dear fellow list members, > >I think we need a reality check here on this one, and *reality* is >exactly what I mean. > >One person wrote: > >>It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace >>is already upon us, if you will.... The major powers have signed >>the essential documents.... We await merely the convulsions of >>history to realize the fullness of their implications.... > >And another: > >>My own view is that the Lesser >>Peace became realized with the issuance of the Promise of World >>Peace, by the Universal House of Justice. > >My dear friends, have you read the paper of late or watched the evening >news? We currently have various alliances and situations all over the >world where one nation is ready to pounce on another nation regardless of >what has been signed on paper. Take for example Russia that signed the >1991 Gulf War sactions agreement and now it's learned that behind >everyones back they sold biological developing supplies to Iraq in 1995. >Paper most often means nothing these days. How many mideast agreements >have been signed to be followed by yet another war? > >As it says in the Bible there will be "wars and rumors of wars" and that >could be no other time than now. We have the US Fleet right at this >moment sitting in the Persian Gulf with their guns cocked and aimed at >Iraq. We have Russia warning of a larger global conflict depending on >what moves we make and the rest of the UN is not totally unified behind >the United States "shoot first, ask later" self-appointed 'world cop' >role. That doesn't sound like peace to me. It sounds like an escalation >moving closer to a larger war. We don't know where all of Russias >dismantled nuclear materials are and there is the greater threat of >biological war. A day doesn't go by when the news covers another revealed >terrorist plot. This past sunday it was revealed that the this summers >World Cup Soccer match was to be the site of a terrorist attack. > >Let's not forget what this is all about. Religion and oil in the mideast. > >We consume far more than our share of oil in the United States and like >an addicted substance abuser we don't want our cheap supply cut off. Gas >is at its lowest price in over 20 years and if it was cut off we couldn't >support ourselves with our own self generated supply. Russia is aligned >with Iraq because they sold all of their oil development rights to them. >Oil is the fuel for economic advancement in this world and that's what >Russia is in desperate need of. > >The world is still immersed in the "world of dust" and there is nothing >that even resembles a mini-lesser peace going on today. What about a >"spiritual solution to the economic problem"? The disparity in economics >continues. I don't see that even being discussed. Till mankind lends an >ear to a higher calling we'll be living and reliving the same old >scenario. The Baha'i faith is supposed to bring a *New* World Order. All >I see here is more of the Same Old World Order. > >The major powers that have signed "essential documents" and the UN itself >are the victors from World War II which ended over 50 years ago and still >have a hold on the world at the end of this century. They maintain their >world power and exercise their agenda through that fake world government. >These countries are Great Britain, Russia, France and the United States. >It is an organization that mimmics and mocks Baha'u'llahs plan for the >Universal House of Justice and it is destined to fail. > >I've talked to some Baha'is that believe that this UN will somehow >evolve, merge or defer to the Universal House of Justice sometime in the >future. I don't think that's going to happen. As we know the United >States doesn't even pay it's dues nor does it listen to the decisions >made there unless they are to their advantage. There is a policy of >picking and choosing what resolutions to follow. Israel in recent years >has rarely followed what it's been told to do in the U.N. and the United >States doesn't come down on them as harshly as Iraq. Arab countries have >a valid complaint concerning this injustice which seems to be more >apparent everywhere except here. Isn't it justice that Baha'u'llah >promised to bring into the world? This body isn't interested in justice. > >How can we support this UN body that has caused so much suffering in Iraq >during the past seven years? It has even prevented thousands of Iraqi >citizens from going to Mecca on the Hajj. I think this is objectionable I >cannot in anyway support the request from National to lobby the congress >to pay our dues. I think that the UN is an unjust body and I don't >believe in either supporting it or boycotting it. I just don't think a >fake world government is a player in the big scheme of things and it will >-- due to it's ill conceived goals -- fall apart like the other attempts >at world governments without a spiritual basis. Where is the World Court >that was established? That didn't work and now they want to start a new >one. Where is the League of Nations today? That didn't work either. The >only plan that will work and bring about both the lesser and greater >peace is if the world turns to God and his lesser covenant. > >Shoghi Effendi was a very wise man to have the faith affiliated with the >UN in his day. It's helped spread the faith around the world and get the >recognition that it is destined to obtain but that does not mean we >support their every action. It *is* a political body and we are not to be >involved in politics. > >Where is our compasion? Where is our outcry for the injustices that that >U.N. has spread around the world? We still must learn to see beyond >borders, alliances, religions and be on the lookout for humanity. Aren't >we citizens of the world and isn't every man and woman of our own blood? >This is basic Baha'i stuff that is often boasted by Baha'is but not >always acted upon. It looks great on a t-shirt but putting it into action >is the real test of faith. Why aren't we starting a grass roots campaign >to send aid to the people of the world ravaged by war? > >Someone else wrote: > >>When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i House >>of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >>completed. > >What he actually said was "The temple is already built." On another >occasion he said "Teaching is the very cornerstone of the faith itself." >That, to be certain, is the ONLY thing that will bring about the change >in this world to the lesser peace and then on to the greater peace when >war will be banished. If we do not teach it can only be the Baha'is to >blame for the continued sorry state of the world. An effort to teach >should be the primary "grassroots campaign" we need today. > >Thank you for listening to my bit of a ramble. I hope some of you can see >my points. Counter points and further observations requested. > >RMSolem > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 7:25 AM To: S. Michele Smith Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Personal message? I fail to see how it could be construed as such.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >Thank you for your submission. However, as it is a personal message and >does not further the discussion, I am returning it to you unposted. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > >---------- >From: FG >To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net >Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith >Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 5:29 AM > >Carl Allen Brehmer wrote in message <"SK9eTB.A.FQ.fg-F1"@bounty>... >> >>>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>>over 1400, and is now under 1200. > > >>In the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of "paper >>LSAs." > >You haven't answered the question: how many are there now.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 26, 1998 7:30 AM Subject: re Rejecting the Bahai faith Carl Allen Brehmer wrote in message <"SK9eTB.A.FQ.fg-F1"@bounty>... > >>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>over 1400, and is now under 1200. >In the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of "paper >LSAs." Neither you nor any other Bahai during this extended thread on this subject involving many different people in public has yet to answer the question: how many LSAs are there now.... I invite you or another participant on soc.religion.bahai to respond.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: fw Re: Re: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 5:56 AM Subject: Re: Re: Year 2001 >To every word RMSolem wrote, I answer :"Hear, hear!" >Another saying of Abdul'Baha's: "What this world needs is a good dose of >honesty." I don't think He was speaking strictly in terms of not stealing or >lying, but also in the sense that we have to start using our *critical >thinking* capabilities. It is more than evident that the world is in travail, >but we have not yet been through the "universal convulsion" mentioned by >Baha'u'llah. Nor have the prophecies of Jesus been fulfilled yet, where He >stated that not until the "abomination of desolation" would be apparent (what >is this? Nuclear holocaust?) would the "time" be upon us...and then--watch >out. "Tribulation such as has not been seen since the beginning of creation" >(Mark 13:19). Baha'u'llah stated that it will be so terrible that it was not >"meet or seemly' for Him to discuss it. This doesn't sound like a friendly >"evolution" from the UN to the UHJ. >I have already spoken at length in some forums about the manner in which the >Baha'is have done the exact opposite of what Shoghi Effendi told them to do: >instead of leaving the cities (an "exodus" was needed, according to the >Guardian) they have flocked in*TO* the cities, the places where their lives >are most in danger. I fail to see the logic behind this, even though I have >heard rationalizing that would make Lewis Carroll proud. >There will be cries of "Peace, peace!" but there shall be no peace, including >a Lesser peace, until some drastic changes take place. And it seems that is >precisely what God has in mind... >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: fw The value of predictions fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Lucien Dol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 6:01 AM Subject: The value of predictions >Friends, > >Although I am not a Baha'i (yet), I tend to agree with the comments of >RMSolem. I might have a slightly more positive look on the UN than the >writer, but I also do not see many signs of a "lesser peace". Rather I see >the human society spiralling down further and further and faster and >faster, both on a "macro" scale (world politics, global warming etc.) and >on a "micro" scale (kids killing kids, immorality, abuse etc.). It saddens >and scares me - and I'm sure I'm not the only one. > >However, I've given up worrying about predictions and whether they are >coming true now or in the future. I don't care whether these predictions >are made in the Bible or in the Qur'an or in the writings of Baha'u'llah or >'Abdul-Baha - we can't change them. If the divine predictions are true (and >they probably are - otherwise the Manifestations of God would not be who >They claim to be), then they will happen regardless of us knowing when and >how they are going to happen. > >Rather, I believe we are called to work towards establishing a united world >where peace and justice rule and men love and respect each other regardless >of their race, culture, religion, gender or nation. And that process starts >with us living (and giving) our lives for the Cause in the way that our >Divine Teachers have shown us, and then teaching others to do the same. We >should never under-estimate the influence even a few "good" people can have >on the society. Jesus, Muhammed and the Bab all started with only a handful >of men. It took each of the great religions many years to spread and make a >real difference in the world in which they evolved. The Baha'i Faith is >only young and already it has spread around the globe, be it in a very thin >layer. I don't think we can expect the influence of the Baha'is to be >already so great that we can establish a "lesser peace" (although I suppose >it might develop indepent of the growth of the Faith). > >Anyway, just my two cents worth... > >Lucien Dol, >New Zealand. > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: fw Re: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 6:04 AM Subject: Re: Year 2001 >At 09:17 AM 3/25/98 -0500, RMSolem wrote: >>Let's not forget what this is all about. Religion and >>oil in the mideast. > >>The world is still immersed in the "world of dust" and >>there is nothing that even resembles a mini-lesser >>peace going on today. > >I agree that the Lesser Peace has not been realized >objectively, >and that we will undoubtably suffer as long as the world hangs >onto its antiquated nation-state system. Therefore, my point >was >not that we have world peace. It is obvious that we don't. > >I was merely suggesting that the seed of the Lesser Peace was >planted with the publication of the "Promise of World >Peace," by >the Universal House of Justice, in October of 1985. In >addition, >I offered the possibility that perhaps the prediction of the >Lesser Peace by December 31st, 2000, referred to the the >release >of this document. > >It seems to me that prophecy is of two sorts; and I think that >`Abdu'l-Baha examines this subject (op. cit. ,_Some Answered >Questions_ and _Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha_) >when He discusses the two kinds of fate (decreed or ordained >fate and conditional fate). Many prophecies, such the the role >played by the American Baha'i community, we know to be >conditional. Perhaps the Lesser Peace before 2001 is one more. > >To a large extent, I believe, the objective realization of >Lesser Peace depends on the responses of the Baha'i of the >world >to the needs of the Baha'i World Centre and, more specifically, >to the completion of the Arc on Mt. Carmel. In any case, the >House of Justice has, I feel, planted the seed with its message >on global peace. > >Your point about oil and the Middle East, which Shoghi Effendi >was reported to have commented on to various pilgrims in the >Holy Land, may still be valid. I don't know. However, I think >that we need to consider that many of the statements by the >Guardian were relative to the time in which they were given. >Shoghi Effendi conferred infallibility is not, in my view, the >same as omniscience, by his own admission (and, for that >matter, >neither is the Universal House of Justice). Both institutions >rely, for the most part, on available information. > >Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >(913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 7:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: food for thought, sign at your peril fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: R.U. Kind Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 3:57 PM Subject: food for thought, sign at your peril > A Declaration of Interdependence > In solo, November 17, 1997. The anonymous declaration of one human >citizen of Earth. > > Civilization on our planet has reached a level of interconnectedness >unprecedented in our history. People can now communicate nearly >instantaneously from any point on the globe to any point on the globe. >This must have a dramatic effect on the course of human events. Two hundred >years ago it took three weeks for news to travel from a nations capitol to >its frontier regions- minimum. Now it takes less than a second. Now it >becomes possible for a People to think of themselves as one. Now it becomes >possible for certain inalienable Rights and Laws of Nature to be assumed by >one People: all people. > At times such as this a People recognizing their oneness should state >the obvious commonalties they share. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are born >equal, that they are endowed by their existence with certain inalienable >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. >That whenever a People find themselves living as a group certain needs >shall arise, that among these needs are the need for a sanitary >environment, the need for persons to feel secure both inside and outside of >their homes, and other needs not here specified. > That to provide for these needs as well as to secure the >aforementioned Rights, certain power-structures, known as Governments, are >brought into being by a People, that both the Government and the governed >are composed of the People, that the Government derives all of its powers >directly from the governed: the People, that the Government is directly >answerable to the People, and that, by this logic, any problems within the >Government must reside within the governed: the People, that, because of >this, the People have the Right as well as the Responsibility to alter or >abolish existing Forms of Government and/or institute new Government when >they should feel that Government has ceased to economically or efficiently >provide for the Needs and secure the Rights of the People. > That armed insurrection in our current cultural and technological >context is an inviable proposition. > That the safest, most promising method of altering our existing Form >of Government is by making an alteration to the governed- by altering >ourselves. > That a change in the Form of Government is the inevitable result of a >change in the governed. > That it is the province solely of the governed to determine if and >when a change of Form of Government is required and if that change should >take the form of an alteration or an abolishment. > That alteration or abolishment of existing Forms of Government is a >matter of extreme seriousness and should never be considered lightly, that >such an endeavor must always proceed with great cost to the People, and, >therefore, must be reckoned only when all other avenues of redress have >been closed, as it can be seen that humankind is predisposed to suffer >under strife, fear and tyranny rather than upset the order to which they >have become accustomed in order to right perceived wrongs within that >order. > But a time must come when a People say, “Enough! It no longer >balances. The suffering now outweighs the benefit provided by the order,” >and humankind sees that a little suffering of one kind may be worthwhile to >in the interest of ending a greater suffering, that a little disorder now >and the may really be a good thing. > We believe that this time is in its inception. > We believe that by altering how we think of ourselves, we can bring >about the inevitable alteration of our many Forms of Government, cause them >to coalesce into one Form of Government that is composed of and >representative to all the People of this planet, that justly derives its >powers from all of the People and equally justly provides for the Common >Good of all the People, as Forms of Government exist to do. > We could now make a list of all the abuses ever to have been rendered >by a Form of Government upon a governed People, but we believe it falls to >the individual to make his/her own observations and measurements of how >long the abuses shall be borne. > We, therefore, mutually pledge to think of ourselves, henceforth, as >human beings, citizens of Earth, third stone from the Sun, first and >foremost, before any other geographically defined citizenship, free human >citizens, able to move about the globe at will and to conduct our affairs >free from observance of political boundaries. That we are, in truth, as >citizens of Earth, in and of ourselves, Free and Independent States and are >free to act as such and are free to assume all the Rights assumed by Free >and Independent States, and that, by virtue of the current technological >level to which our culture has arisen, we exist in a profound state of >Interdependence not enjoyed by so large a Body of peoples at any time in >our history. > That none can survive where all are not included. > That our current level of technological sophistication dictates that >all must consider all else in any consideration of action, that all Peoples >of this planet are now brought together by the Global Communication Network >that has been brought into being on this planet. That we are now all come >together as one People as has never before been possible on this planet. > That this places us in an unprecedented state of Interdependence. > We can now think of ourselves as one. > One People. > One World. > One Planet. > Together. > > And we, therefore, mutually pledge to support the Spirit of this >Declaration within, and with, our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. > In solo, November 17, 1997. The anonymous declaration of one human >citizen of Earth. > > Civilization on our planet has reached a level of interconnectedness >unprecedented in our history. People can now communicate nearly >instantaneously from any point on the globe to any point on the globe. >This must have a dramatic effect on the course of human events. Two hundred >years ago it took three weeks for news to travel from a nations capitol to >its frontier regions- minimum. Now it takes less than a second. Now it >becomes possible for a People to think of themselves as one. Now it becomes >possible for certain inalienable Rights and Laws of Nature to be assumed by >one People: all people. > At times such as this a People recognizing their oneness should state >the obvious commonalties they share. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are born >equal, that they are endowed by their existence with certain inalienable >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. >That whenever a People find themselves living as a group certain needs >shall arise, that among these needs are the need for a sanitary >environment, the need for persons to feel secure both inside and outside of >their homes, and other needs not here specified. > That to provide for these needs as well as to secure the >aforementioned Rights, certain power-structures, known as Governments, are >brought into being by a People, that both the Government and the governed >are composed of the People, that the Government derives all of its powers >directly from the governed: the People, that the Government is directly >answerable to the People, and that, by this logic, any problems within the >Government must reside within the governed: the People, that, because of >this, the People have the Right as well as the Responsibility to alter or >abolish existing Forms of Government and/or institute new Government when >they should feel that Government has ceased to economically or efficiently >provide for the Needs and secure the Rights of the People. > That armed insurrection in our current cultural and technological >context is an inviable proposition. > That the safest, most promising method of altering our existing Form >of Government is by making an alteration to the governed- by altering >ourselves. > That a change in the Form of Government is the inevitable result of a >change in the governed. > That it is the province solely of the governed to determine if and >when a change of Form of Government is required and if that change should >take the form of an alteration or an abolishment. > That alteration or abolishment of existing Forms of Government is a >matter of extreme seriousness and should never be considered lightly, that >such an endeavor must always proceed with great cost to the People, and, >therefore, must be reckoned only when all other avenues of redress have >been closed, as it can be seen that humankind is predisposed to suffer >under strife, fear and tyranny rather than upset the order to which they >have become accustomed in order to right perceived wrongs within that >order. > But a time must come when a People say, “Enough! It no longer >balances. The suffering now outweighs the benefit provided by the order,” >and humankind sees that a little suffering of one kind may be worthwhile to >in the interest of ending a greater suffering, that a little disorder now >and the may really be a good thing. > We believe that this time is in its inception. > We believe that by altering how we think of ourselves, we can bring >about the inevitable alteration of our many Forms of Government, cause them >to coalesce into one Form of Government that is composed of and >representative to all the People of this planet, that justly derives its >powers from all of the People and equally justly provides for the Common >Good of all the People, as Forms of Government exist to do. > We could now make a list of all the abuses ever to have been rendered >by a Form of Government upon a governed People, but we believe it falls to >the individual to make his/her own observations and measurements of how >long the abuses shall be borne. > We, therefore, mutually pledge to think of ourselves, henceforth, as >human beings, citizens of Earth, third stone from the Sun, first and >foremost, before any other geographically defined citizenship, free human >citizens, able to move about the globe at will and to conduct our affairs >free from observance of political boundaries. That we are, in truth, as >citizens of Earth, in and of ourselves, Free and Independent States and are >free to act as such and are free to assume all the Rights assumed by Free >and Independent States, and that, by virtue of the current technological >level to which our culture has arisen, we exist in a profound state of >Interdependence not enjoyed by so large a Body of peoples at any time in >our history. > That none can survive where all are not included. > That our current level of technological sophistication dictates that >all must consider all else in any consideration of action, that all Peoples >of this planet are now brought together by the Global Communication Network >that has been brought into being on this planet. That we are now all come >together as one People as has never before been possible on this planet. > That this places us in an unprecedented state of Interdependence. > We can now think of ourselves as one. > One People. > One World. > One Planet. > Together. > > And we, therefore, mutually pledge to support the Spirit of this >Declaration within, and with, our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. > In solo, November 17, 1997. The anonymous declaration of one human >citizen of Earth. > > Civilization on our planet has reached a level of interconnectedness >unprecedented in our history. People can now communicate nearly >instantaneously from any point on the globe to any point on the globe. >This must have a dramatic effect on the course of human events. Two hundred >years ago it took three weeks for news to travel from a nations capitol to >its frontier regions- minimum. Now it takes less than a second. Now it >becomes possible for a People to think of themselves as one. Now it becomes >possible for certain inalienable Rights and Laws of Nature to be assumed by >one People: all people. > At times such as this a People recognizing their oneness should state >the obvious commonalties they share. > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are born >equal, that they are endowed by their existence with certain inalienable >Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. >That whenever a People find themselves living as a group certain needs >shall arise, that among these needs are the need for a sanitary >environment, the need for persons to feel secure both inside and outside of >their homes, and other needs not here specified. > That to provide for these needs as well as to secure the >aforementioned Rights, certain power-structures, known as Governments, are >brought into being by a People, that both the Government and the governed >are composed of the People, that the Government derives all of its powers >directly from the governed: the People, that the Government is directly >answerable to the People, and that, by this logic, any problems within the >Government must reside within the governed: the People, that, because of >this, the People have the Right as well as the Responsibility to alter or >abolish existing Forms of Government and/or institute new Government when >they should feel that Government has ceased to economically or efficiently >provide for the Needs and secure the Rights of the People. > That armed insurrection in our current cultural and technological >context is an inviable proposition. > That the safest, most promising method of altering our existing Form >of Government is by making an alteration to the governed- by altering >ourselves. > That a change in the Form of Government is the inevitable result of a >change in the governed. > That it is the province solely of the governed to determine if and >when a change of Form of Government is required and if that change should >take the form of an alteration or an abolishment. > That alteration or abolishment of existing Forms of Government is a >matter of extreme seriousness and should never be considered lightly, that >such an endeavor must always proceed with great cost to the People, and, >therefore, must be reckoned only when all other avenues of redress have >been closed, as it can be seen that humankind is predisposed to suffer >under strife, fear and tyranny rather than upset the order to which they >have become accustomed in order to right perceived wrongs within that >order. > But a time must come when a People say, “Enough! It no longer >balances. The suffering now outweighs the benefit provided by the order,” >and humankind sees that a little suffering of one kind may be worthwhile to >in the interest of ending a greater suffering, that a little disorder now >and the may really be a good thing. > We believe that this time is in its inception. > We believe that by altering how we think of ourselves, we can bring >about the inevitable alteration of our many Forms of Government, cause them >to coalesce into one Form of Government that is composed of and >representative to all the People of this planet, that justly derives its >powers from all of the People and equally justly provides for the Common >Good of all the People, as Forms of Government exist to do. > We could now make a list of all the abuses ever to have been rendered >by a Form of Government upon a governed People, but we believe it falls to >the individual to make his/her own observations and measurements of how >long the abuses shall be borne. > We, therefore, mutually pledge to think of ourselves, henceforth, as >human beings, citizens of Earth, third stone from the Sun, first and >foremost, before any other geographically defined citizenship, free human >citizens, able to move about the globe at will and to conduct our affairs >free from observance of political boundaries. That we are, in truth, as >citizens of Earth, in and of ourselves, Free and Independent States and are >free to act as such and are free to assume all the Rights assumed by Free >and Independent States, and that, by virtue of the current technological >level to which our culture has arisen, we exist in a profound state of >Interdependence not enjoyed by so large a Body of peoples at any time in >our history. > That none can survive where all are not included. > That our current level of technological sophistication dictates that >all must consider all else in any consideration of action, that all Peoples >of this planet are now brought together by the Global Communication Network >that has been brought into being on this planet. That we are now all come >together as one People as has never before been possible on this planet. > That this places us in an unprecedented state of Interdependence. > We can now think of ourselves as one. > One People. > One World. > One Planet. > Together. > > And we, therefore, mutually pledge to support the Spirit of this >Declaration within, and with, our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 7:28 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: re Peace 200001 Roger Reini wrote in message <3519ef1d.224022970@news.newsguy.com>... >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:03:24 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>From: Mark A. Foster >> >>>When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >>>House >>>of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >>>completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >>>Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >>>planes >>>of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! >> >>It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace >>is already upon us, if you will.... The major powers have signed >>the essential documents.... We await merely the convulsions of >>history to realize the fullness of their implications.... > >I have suspected this for a while, that we may, in fact, have seen the >establishment of the "unity of nations" (as stated by 'Abdu'l-Baha in >His "seven candles" talk). Only in hindsight will it be recognized. It may sound dubious to some Bahais, who expect an article on the front page of the American Bahai, but the major powers consciously signed at the end of the Cold War instruments that extend the powers of the UN, reviving the entire notion of a military component, left in abeyance because of the ideological split between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The extensive outline in Boutros Boutros Ghali's 1992 "Agenda for Peace" marks massive changes of perspective..... It shouldn't be a surprised that much of the world goes on, to quote W. H. Auden, with its "doggy life." > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 1998 7:29 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: re Peace 200001 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 5:14 AM Subject: Re: re Peace 200001 >On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 07:03:24 -0500, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>From: Mark A. Foster >> >>>When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >>>House >>>of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >>>completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >>>Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >>>planes >>>of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! >> >>It's this perspective that leads me to believe the lesser peace >>is already upon us, if you will.... The major powers have signed >>the essential documents.... We await merely the convulsions of >>history to realize the fullness of their implications.... > >I have suspected this for a while, that we may, in fact, have seen the >establishment of the "unity of nations" (as stated by 'Abdu'l-Baha in >His "seven candles" talk). Only in hindsight will it be recognized. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 1998 9:01 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Would like information on the Bahai fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Gina Miller Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, March 27, 1998 6:56 PM Subject: Would like information on the Bahai >I don't know what Bahai is. Could someone e-mail me and tell me more? >MillerJPG@worldnet.att.net > > ---------- From: S. Michele Smith[SMTP:smsmith@cybertrails.com] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 1998 4:06 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am sorry that you fail to see how it could be construed as personal. It just didn't seem to me to have much "meat" as a question, so I felt it seemed like a more personal question than one directed to the readership of srb. However, you have re-submitted your question in a more in-depth manner, and I have posted that. Sincerely, S. Michele Smith co-moderator soc-religion-bahai ---------- From: FG To: S. Michele Smith Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith Date: Thursday, March 26, 1998 5:25 AM Personal message? I fail to see how it could be construed as such.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >Thank you for your submission. However, as it is a personal message and >does not further the discussion, I am returning it to you unposted. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > >---------- >From: FG >To: soc-religion-bahai@uunet.uu.net >Subject: Re: Rejecting the Baha'i Faith >Date: Wednesday, March 25, 1998 5:29 AM > >Carl Allen Brehmer wrote in message <"SK9eTB.A.FQ.fg-F1"@bounty>... >> >>>Moreover the number of LSAs in the US peaked in the late 1970s at >>>over 1400, and is now under 1200. > > >>In the late 1970's and early 1980's there were a number of "paper >>LSAs." > >You haven't answered the question: how many are there now.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:51 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: John&Dale onJesus' Resurrection #2 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 10:48 PM Subject: John&Dale onJesus' Resurrection #2 >To: "John Noland" > From: "Dale Grider" > >Dear John, > In your second letter to me you say, > > >"There are two fundamental points of Christian Doctrine that we have >not discussed as of yet, that I believe are the real issues of >contention. > >1.) Christian Antinomianism (anti-law), or more simply, salvation by >faith. >2.) Christology, or more simply, Jesus as God Incarnate.... > >...The arguments for #2 above would come from ?????. Neither Christ nor >His >apostles ever asserted that Christ was God. This inference took several >hundred years to evolve into doctrine, one of the most significant >milestones >in that process being the Council at Nicea in 325 AD. If you don't know >the >historical origins of Christology or the Trinitarian doctrine, I could >discuss >them at some length later. For now, I'll just say that the circumstances >of >their adoption as Christian doctrine were somewhat circumspect... > > ...I believe that in the process of defending doctrines that you hold >to, you will be forced to realize how difficult a process it really is. >For certain, there is much evidence to support the above doctrines. But, >there is just as much, if not more, to discount them as nothing more >than man-made perversions of the original intent." > > In this letter I'd like to address the second topic first since it is >really the one whose ramifications are most relevant to the >Christian/Baha'i discussion. Is Jesus Christ of Nazareth "God the Son >incarnate", or only a "reflection" of God that, in station, other >"manifestations" may also share? As we read the Bible is there any >indication of which must be true? If Jesus Christ is personally "God in >the flesh" and not just a "mirror" of God, we find that most Baha'i >doctrinal assumptions crumble. For they rest upon the assumption of the >multiple "mirror manifestation" concept. You argue that neither Jesus >nor the Apostles ever asserted that Christ was God. You say that such a >concept was a later "perversion" of the original intentions of >Scripture. But it can be shown that there are enough passages whose >implications definitively lead to Christ being God, that the rest of >those less definitive ones that still suggest it, become defined within >that context as also being definitive of the doctrine of Christ's >personal deity. In other words, there are passages in the Bible that >leave NO OTHER OPTION than that Jesus was God in the flesh. Thus, those >other more controversially "interpretable" ones that still also >contribute support for the doctrine, must follow the contextual line in >agreement with the more definitive Scriptural indications. All that the >"historical origins of Christology" amount to John is the Church >formalizing what was already inherent in Scripture as, over time, >various heresies attempted to challenge and pervert those original >inherent intentions of Scripture. You seem to have things backward in >this regard. The Church's formalizing of doctrine arose and developed to >formally protect Scripture's doctrinal intentions and to give answer to >and CORRECT perversion that impinged upon the early Church. If you know >church history as you seem to suggest, then you know that this is a >documented fact in how the early church faced a stream of doctrinal >heresies that attempted to take advantage of the fact that a definitive >interpretation on some of these matters had not yet been formalized. >This was the struggle. Not the other way around as you suggest. This >pattern is already clearly revealed in Scripture itself wherein the >Apostles themselves were already facing false teachers who were trying >to twist the intended Message. Ironically, a critical part of the >intention that the Apostles were struggling to firmly establish and >protect from perversion was the literal and yes, even physical, >Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. They strove to emphasize that >He was "alive" personally, literally, and even physically AFTER His >death by crucifixion. > The first place to go in developing the apologetic for Jesus as God is >from the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah. Jesus Himself helps us >understand this as He Himself constantly refers to them leaving no >other conclusion than that He was God incarnate. But as I share these >passages and the New Testament ones that set the context for >interpretation, we MUST keep in mind that Jesus Christ was "incarnate" >deity. This is to say that he was "fully" man, not just "fully God". >Thus we must accept that, as a perfect and sinless human man, he >retained a humble attitude ("made Himself as nothing"). ANY shred of >arrogance on His part would have constituted sin. And so His personal >doctrinal assertions are indeed often subdued and never haughtily >proclaimed. They are often found to be in the form of rhetorical >questions, the answers to which could only leave the inevitable >conclusion that He was God. Nevertheless, they are revealed in ways >definitive enough for Him to retain humbleness as a man ("If I give >myself glory my glory amounts to nothing") but still proclaim the truth >("that all should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father"). They >are there for those "seeking" to see. They were formalized over >centuries of the Church's wrestling with just what Scripture really >"intended" in the face of a multitude of heresies proposed, a >progressive distillation of the doctrinal essentials of the Christian >Faith. That, John, is a positive not a negative. We find that the >Christian essentials were refined over a long and careful period of >trial with more "conference"/ "committee" time than any other document >has ever gotten in terms of interpretative analysis. Your use of the >word "circumspect" is an inaccurate term that certainly had nothing to >do with the sincere apologetic process that the Church underwent in >determining what Scripture was relaying doctrinally as many unbiblical >doctrines were being proposed. > But let us turn to Scripture to investigate just how we should regard >this Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Messiah, Savior. At Isaiah 43:11 God lets >us know in no uncertain terms that if anyone will be a Savior it will be >God Himself. > >"I, even I, am the Lord and apart from me there is no Savior." > >At Isaiah 59:15 God says, >"The Lord looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw >that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to >intervene; so His own arm worked salvation for Him, and His own >righteousness sustained Him. He put on righteousness as His breastplate >and the helmet of salvation on His head." > > God Himself was to be the Savior for there was no one else worthy to >intervene.To fulfill prophecy as the Messiah, the Savior, Jesus Christ >of Nazareth, had to be within the Godhead. > > Now if we consider this, and then look again at John 1, we cannot come >to anything but the conclusion set within that broad intended biblical >context, that Jesus, the Savior, was necessarily God incarnate. The >Baha'i interpretation falls apart. > > John 1, >"In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word >was God. He (Jesus) was with God in the beginning. Through Him all >things were made. Without Him nothing was made that has been made. In >Him was life and that life was the light of men... The Word (which is >God) became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His >glory, the glory of the one and only." > > Isaiah 45:18 is another scripture in the web of biblical agreement >concerning this truth; > >"For this is what the Lord says- <<God>>>; He who fashioned and made the earth." > > This is Jesus, God the Son, through whom and by whom all things were >created. Colossians 1:15 tells us the same thing about Jesus Christ of >Nazareth that God personally claimed for only Himself in Isaiah; > >"...by Him (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) all things were created: things in >heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or >rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is >before all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was >pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him." > > In context of what God Himself says in Isaiah, the only "perversion of >intention" possible would be to deny that Jesus Christ was God. And >again John, keep in mind that these attributes in Collosians are not >being attributed to some generic "Christ Spirit". It is being >specifically said here that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the "Creator" >of "all things" and who was personally "before all things". The passage >is specifically about JESUS Christ, PERSONALLY. > > > Another connection between Old Testament prophecy and its fulfillment >in Jesus that indicates His deity can be seen by comparing Isaiah 45:22 >and Phillipians 2:5. Isaiah 45:22 begins, >"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God and >there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all >integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will >bow; by me every tongue will swear. They will say of me, 'In the Lord >alone are righteousness and strength.' All who have raged against Him >will come to Him and be put to shame. But in the Lord all the >descendants of Israel will be found righteous and will exult." > >Here God tells us again that He alone can save us. He is the only >Savior. He tells us that in the end all will acknowledge His >righteousness and that some will see that truth to their shame, others >to their joy. Now let us look at Phillipians 2:5 to see how Jesus >compares to this description God has given us of Himself; > >"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who being in >very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be >grasped, but made Himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, >being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He >humbled Himself and became obedient to death- even death on a cross! >Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place and gave Him the name >that is above every name, that <<<should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue >confess that Jesus Christ is Lord>>>>, to the glory of God the Father." > > Now we can see that it is before both the God in Isaiah and, in the >same sense, the Jesus in Phillipians that every knee will bow and every >tongue confess them Lord. We can see that Jesus, "being in very nature >God", was "MADE" to be in human "likeness" as a servant by voluntarily >taking on a dual, mortal "nature of a servant" by choice, "being found >in appearance as a man." God in Isaiah clearly tells us that there is no >Savior apart from God Himself and that He will judge Man. Jesus is >clearly indicated in Scripture as both the Savior and exclusive Judge of >Mankind. For in Acts 4:12 it says of Jesus, >"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under >heaven given to men by which we must be saved." > >And Jesus said of Himself in John 5:22, >"The Father judges not but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that >all may honor the Son <<>> they honor the Father." > >The interconnected agreement in Scripture unmistakably proclaims Christ >as the preeminent spiritual figure in all of human history and, beyond >that, our very God. >Jesus said, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing." But He also >said that there was one who did glorify Him. If the Father Himself >glorifies Christ who can refute His glory? > >In Isaiah 42:8 God says, >"I am the Lord: that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or >my praise to idols." > >But in John 13:31 Jesus says, >"Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in Him. If God is >glorified in Him, God will glorify the Son in Himself..." > >God IS glorified in the Son (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) and, the Son is >also glorified in God. Jesus' identity as God the Son is thus revealed >in the distinct integrity of His person in association with that of the >Father who DOES give Him His glory. > >Jesus Says in John 3:13, >"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven- >the Son of Man. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only >Son that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal >life." > >Jesus' claim that no one but Himself has ever been to heaven >definitively sets Him apart and above every other prophet and religious >leader for all time. Here we see in His very own words, not the claim to >be a Messenger in common with other religious leaders, but the "one and >only" Son of God. He does not tell us that the light of God's truth >alone has been in heaven, but that He, Jesus, is personally the only one >among men who has been there. It is a deific claim, not one of a >"messenger" or "mirror" only. > >In John 5:21 Jesus says, >"For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so, >the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to give it. Moreover the Father >judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to the Son that all may >honor the Son even as they honor the Father who sent Him." > > Let us look at each part of this dramatic scripture to see the full >implication of Christ's words. "For just as the Father raises the dead >and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom He is pleased to >give it." We immediately see that Christ clearly distinguishes Father >and Son, attributing to both the power to give life. It does not say >that just as the Father gives life, even so, the Father gives life >through the Son. It says that the Son Himself gives life, just like the >Father, and further more to whom He is pleased to give it. > > Jesus said, "The Father judges no one but has entrusted all judgment to >the Son." How much clearer a distinguishing aspect of the >differentiation between Father and Son could there be? And yet how much >more deific importance could be attached to Jesus' person than that He, >and not the Father, is the Judge of all Mankind? How much clearer could >Christ's godhood be proclaimed than that He, and not the Father, judges >us. No one but God owns such authority. > And finally, "...that all may honor the Son even as they honor the >Father who sent Him." Not only does Jesus again distinguish Father and >Son, but declares that the honor given the Father must be also given the >Son. This again both shows the deity and distinct personage of both >Father and Son as "persons" of the Godhead. That "Son" expressed in the >passage John, is not a generic "Christ spirit", it is a "person", Jesus >Christ of Nazareth. > But to see Christ's true station we must not look at the question of >only where godly authority lies. For at different times and in different >ways authority is transferred within the Godhead freely and in perfect >agreement. Christ judges, not the Father, but that authority is given >back to the Father at the end that God may be all in all. As a man, >Jesus only does and says what the Father tells Him, but He still has the >authority to give eternal life "to whom He pleases." Thus, though we >cannot have perfect understanding of the relationship within the Godhead >between Father and Son and Spirit, we see that they carry different >omnipotent authorities independently. > > In this context we can clearly see that the Jews were not mistakenly >misunderstanding Jesus' intentions in John 5:16 or 10:31 as Baha'i >belief would suggest. They wanted to stone Him because, indeed, He was >genuinely claiming in personal station the authority and identity of >God. This, they felt, was blasphemy. They were dramatic claims to be >sure, and of such importance in their implications that Jesus made no >mistake about clearly relaying His intention, even in the life >threatening situation of the synagogue where He might have been stoned. >In John 8:56 He tells the Pharisees, >" 'Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw >it and was glad.' >' You are not yet fifty years old', the Jews said to Him, 'and you have >seen Abraham!' >'I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before Abraham was born, I am!' >At this, they picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus hid Himself, >slipping away from the temple grounds." > > Of course the unbelieving enemies of Christ immediately set out to >stone Him! Not only did He claim deity by asserting that He was >personally in existence before Abraham and that He was Abraham's hope >for joy, but He even used for Himself the Old Testament name for God >given by God to Moses; I am. There was left no doubt of His intentions. >Remember the significant point here John that Jesus wasn't making these >claims for a "Christ Spirit". He was making them personally, defining >the "person" of Himself, Jesus Christ of Nazareth, in claims of deity >that the Jews considered blasphemy. > > In Matthew 22:41, Mark 12:35, and Luke 20:41, Jesus offers us another >opportunity to accept Him as Messiah, God the Son. These passages all >relay the same account. It is a dramatic one in which Jesus Himself >reveals His personal deity as the "Messiah". At Matthew 22:41 we read, > >"While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 'What do >you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?' 'The son of David', they >replied. ' How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls Him >Lord? For he says, "The Lord said to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand >until I put your enemies under your feet.' " If then David calls Him >'Lord' how can he be his son?' No one could say a word in reply, and >from that day on no one dared to ask Him any more questions." > > Unquestionably the Gospel intention is that Jesus is personally that >Messiah. How indeed could Jesus, the Messiah, be both son and Lord of >David? Christ does not answer the question, for the answer is obvious to >one who has faith in the Word and power of God. If Jesus' person is that >of a mortal man, He must only be David's son. The mortal lineage of the >Messiah is from David who lived and died long before Jesus' incarnation. >But as God in the flesh Christ assumes a duality in His nature. He is >both mortal son and immortal Lord of David. There is no other reason >Jesus would have posed this most revealing question about Psalm 110 that >proclaims the deity of His person so clearly. He made it clear, through >Old Testament Scripture, that the Messiah was not only the son of David, >but also the Lord of David. Therefore not only man, but also God the >Son. > > Peter confirms this in Acts 2:36 after having just quoted the same >Psalm verse. He tells all who were present at the Pentecost, > >"Let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus whom you >crucified, both Lord and Christ." > > Jesus was both Lord (God), and Christ (man). If God confirms Him both >Lord and Christ who can refute it? If David calls Him both Lord and son >who can deny Him? If God tells Isaiah that He will give His glory to no >other, and yet Jesus is glorified in God and God in Jesus, as we saw in >John 13:31, who can fail to accept the truth? >And so we see that, according to Scripture, Abdul Baha is wrong when he >tells us that "...for every being their is a point which it cannot >overpass; that is to say, he who is in the condition of servitude, >however far he may progress in gaining limitless perfections, will never >reach the condition of Deity." There is ONE man who clearly reaches the >"condition of Deity"; Jesus Christ. > You state John that you, > "... believe that in the process of defending doctrines that you hold >to, you will be forced to realize how difficult a process it really is. >For certain, there is much evidence to support the above doctrines." > But, on the contrary, In the process of defending them I discover how >inevitable those doctrines are John. They are discoverable in Scripture >as being definitive beyond a question of doubt and Church history need >have absolutely nothing to do with it. Directly exegeting the Scripture >itself is sufficient even for a relative amatuer such as myself. But >"Church History" reveals that those panels of dedicated, thorough, and >expert, Christian scholars, Catholic and protestant alike, have, down >through the ages, continued to find that the doctrinal essential of >Jesus' personal incarnate deity is a fundamental truth definitively >revealed in Scripture. > In another example, we should observe that in Scripture, Jesus' claim >that no one but Himself has ever been to heaven definitively sets Him >apart and above every other prophet and religious leader for all time. >Here we see in His very own words, not the claim to be a Messenger in >common with other religious leaders, but the "one and only" Son of God." >Jesus is telling us here (in contrast to any other mortals who might >claim to be a common "manifestation") that only He, Jesus, has been to >heaven. It represents, to say the least, a non trivial distinction from >other supposed "manifestations". When we set this beside Baha'u'llah's >admonition that, (Gleanings 59-60), "Whoso maketh the slightest possible >difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their >acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His >signs and betrayed the Cause of His Messengers.", we find that Scripture >and Baha'i doctrine just don't line up. > On page 78 of Gleanings Baha'u'llah says, "God. the Creator, saith: >There is no distinction whatsoever among the bearers of My Message. They >all have but one purpose; their secret is the same secret. To prefer one >in honor to another, to exalt certain ones above the rest, is in no wise >to be permitted. Every true prophet hath regarded His Message as >fundamentally the same as the Revelation of every other Prophet gone >before him." > > But here we find a vast distinction wherein Jesus alone amongst any >mortal being has been in heaven. Considering the spiritual nature of >what we discuss with God as the prime focus, I don't know how much more >of a "distinction" Baha'is would need before they came to realize just >how exclusively such a statement places Jesus Christ of Nazareth above >other presumed religious gurus? > > Baha'is, at this point along such a line of discussion, often point out >that in the Bible it is recorded that both Enoch and Elijah ascended >bodily into heaven. In Genesis 5:24 we can read, "Enoch walked with God; >then he was no more, because God took him away." And in 2 Kings 2:11, >"... suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared ... and >Elijah went up into heaven in a whirlwind." > > But such observations utterly miss the point Jesus was making. >Observations about Enoch or Elijah ascending bodily into heaven are >irrelevant in relation to what Jesus is claiming. The point was not to >say that no one was in heaven! The point was to say that no one on >Earth, in any position to ever have taught about heaven here within the >mortal realm, has ever been there, except Him. Where is the Scripture >that shows that the PERSON of Enoch ever came back to teach anyone about >heaven? Elijah, the individual person, may have been taken up TO heaven >in a whirlwind, but he has never come back down in one to tell us about >it. Jesus utterly exclusive claim in this regard has serious and >profound implications. He claims here to be the ONLY human personality >that has ever walked the earth having come FROM heaven. Such a claim >directly points to His concept of Himself as personally being God >incarnate, in a position of singular distinction infinitely above ANY >former or subsequent "manifestation". > We see this clearly when we study the implications of Jesus claim from >a greater biblical context. Passages like Proverbs 30:4 give us such a >perspective; > >"Who has gone up to heaven and come down? Who has gathered up the wind >in the hollow of his hands? Who has wrapped up the waters in his cloak? >Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is his name, <<the name of his son>>>? Tell me if you know!" > > The KEY phrase to keep in mind as we compare this scripture with what >Jesus is saying in John 3:13 is not the part of the question that asks >mankind, "Who has gone up to heaven...". It is the more significant part >of the question that asks who has gone up to heaven, "and come down?". >"What is His name", the proverb asks, "and the name of His Son?" Jesus >answers the question clearly at John 3:13. God the Son, Jesus Christ of >Nazareth. Significantly he answers the question in a singularly >exclusive manner. NO ONE but He himself has been there and come back >down. >Also significantly, the inescapable implications of Christ's Words here >are sorely telling on Baha'i doctrine's attempt to commonize the would >be "manifestations" of the world religions. Baha'i doctrine says, for >example, that many former religious founders from various world >religions before Jesus' "dispensation" were true and genuine >"manifestations". Even within the Jewish religious tradition out of >which Jesus Himself came we find that Baha'i doctrine considers such >religious leaders as Adam, Noah, and Moses as "manifestations". And >Baha'u'llah specifically disallows us to make ANY distinctions between >any of these manifestations concerning their mutually equal personal >knowledge of spiritual truth. On pg 50 of Gleanings he tells us, >"... they (the Manifestations) are all sent down of heaven of the Will >of God, and as they arise to proclaim His irresistible Faith, they, >therefore, are regarded as one soul and the same person... Even as He >(God) hath revealed: 'No distinction do we make between any of His >Messengers.' ...Thus hath Muhammad, the Point of the Qur'an revealed, 'I >am all the Prophets. Likewise He saith: 'I am thee first Adam, Noah, >Moses, and Jesus." > > Yet Jesus has obviously made a personal claim at John 3:13 that is >diametrically opposed to that concept. NO ONE ON THIS EARTH, Jesus says, >(not Adam, or Moses or Noah, ... or Buddha, or Confucius...) has been to >heaven but only the "Son of Man", Jesus Himself. He creates the exact >type of distinction (and an utterly exclusive one) that Baha'u'llah says >cannot be made. As I have often pointed out, if this kind of observation >does nothing more than to reveal the objective and fundamental rift >between legitimate Scriptural doctrine and Baha'i, it thereby >effectively reveals a fatal flaw in this religion that tries to >rationalize an illusory unity across the world religions in utter >disregard for the real, significant, and profound differences that are >legitimately to be found amongst them. > In an attempt to draw a parallel between Christian's rejection of >Baha'u'llah with the Pharisees rejection of Christ Baha'is often quote >Jesus, > >"Had they believed in Moses, they would have believed in Me." > > Baha'is will interpret that, as the leading clergy of His day were >bickering over their interpretation of the Old Testament and had their >own ideas of the Messiah to come, and miserably failed to recognize Him, >so too, Christians in their narrow literal view of Scripture fail to >recognize Baha'u'llah. "Are we going to draw a lesson from history or >repeat the same mistake?", Baha'is warn us. > > But we can only "draw a lesson from history", by not making the same >LITERAL mistake that history shows the Pharisees to have made. That is, >rejecting Jesus' singular and exclusive Station and Mission. We can only >"repeat the same mistake" in our day by doing EXACTLY what the Jewish >leaders of Jesus day did; failing to accept "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" >for who He said He was, God the Son, eternal and singular Messiah and >Redeemer of all humanity for all time. > > As opposed to Baha'u'llah's assertion that no distinctions are to be >made between the manifestations "persons" or "messages" (Gleanings pg >59-60 that says of "manifestations","Whoso maketh the slightest possible >difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their >acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God...), we find at Hebrews >3:3, that, > >"Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses (a supposed >"manifestation"), just as the builder of a house has greater honor than >the house itself. For every house is built by someone, but God is the >builder of everything." > > Here is true biblical symbolism clearly showing Christ's deity. Moses >is the house but Christ is the builder of the house. And, as we know >that God is the builder of everything, we find Jesus' infinitely greater >station. > If we put Scriptures like this into the context of John 1:3 we >instantly see the vast difference in Baha'i's redefined interpretation >as opposed to Scriptures' clear intention. Jesus is personally and >specifically attributed greater honor than Moses directly in association >with His having been the "Creator" in the exact meaning of God being >that Creator. > > The broad context of Scripture thus defines the intention we must draw >with which to define doctrines. Scripture's context is very broad, with >lots of definitive passages to compare and consider the interrelated >implications of. Thus John, we observe your recognition that the Church >needed some time to address various doctrinal problems as they arose. >You say, "Neither Christ nor His apostles ever asserted that Christ was >God." The fact that you are incorrect is discovered first and foremost >in Scriptural passages that reveal that GOD HIMSELF says it. Those I >have shared in this letter are not at all exhaustive of such Scriptural >references. Though they scratch the surface, there is more than enough >definitive indication from them to establish the Bible's true intention >regarding just who Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Savior / Messiah is. No >more should be necessary. Upon this foundation of God's own defining >aspects for the Messiah, those other passages that are more suggestive >of it become definitive as well within the context. And passages such as >Jesus' rhetorical reference to Psalm 110 are even more than suggestive >of Jesus' incarnate deity. The Church did not find the doctrine of >Jesus' incarnate deity under a stone John. It is interwoven throughout >Scripture in the defining aspects of the "Messiah". It lies inherent to >be discovered. And the Church, whose motivation was fueled by the need >to formalize those interrelated associations within Scripture, did so in >the fire of heretical controversy. Such apologetics are still vital >today as people such as yourself seek to undermine, or redefine, those >genuine intentions that have been wrestled over in no trivial or casual >way, and for a long time. Basic fundamentals like what you term >"Christology" have been reasonably settled in terms of Scripture's >intentions long ago. God says that HE ALONE is the Savior and that apart >from Him there IS NO Messiah. Jesus is definitively described and >attributed the personal title as that Savior and Messiah. Accepting it >is another matter. > >In Christ, >"Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:52 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 10:47 PM Subject: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 >To: "John Noland" > >Dear John, > > You and I disagree with what Abdul Baha's "answered question" 's >rationale is that presumes an explanation for why the Resurrection is to >be taken only symbolically. I say Abdul Baha argues its unreasonable >impossibility according to Science and reason. You say he was only >voicing the inaccurate outlook of others, (giving an example of what an >unelightened person's response might be). If we carefully analyze the >answered question and look at it in context (what immediately precedes >and follows the remarks that you say Abdul was intending to express as >that of being an unenlightened materialist's point of view), we see that >your interpretation is definitively incorrect. > >Some Answered Questions pg 104, >"...His (Jesus') disappearance under the earth for three days has an >inner signification and is <<>> (wrong according to >Scripture. It is an outward fact, regardless of other aspects of its >reality. The implications are signifigant.). In the same way, His >resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a >spiritual and divine fact, <<>>(wrong according to >Scriptures already shared with you and even those you yourself have >cited); and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not >material ascension. >(These explanations thus far are presented as doctrinal fact BY ABDUL >BAHA. They are assertions being made by Abdul Baha, not his relaying of >someone else's point of view). > Beside these explanations (Abdul Baha HIMSELF continues, not his >reflecting on someone else's non Baha'i perspective), it has been >established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless >area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve. > "Therefore" (this "therefore", John linguistically precedes a >logical concluding remark based specifically upon and wrapping up the >preceding BAHA'I argument), "we" say (showing that that preceding >argument is that of the intended Baha'i authority) that the meaning of >Christ's resurrection is as follows: ..." (symbolic). > ANY analysis of the context of this passage refutes the assertion that >Abdul Baha HIMSELF isn't making the argument that "Science" and >"intellect"proves the literal Resurrection impossibly naive. The >statements made both before and after the assertion in question make it >logically impossible for you to have him attributing it to anyone else >but himself, and as part of the pro Baha'i apologetic argument concluded >by a "therefore we say" conclusion. > >Nevertheless, this observation is still beside the main point! For, as I >had observed, even if Abdul Baha were NOT trying to prove the >"impossibility" of the literal Resurrection, his interpreataion >presented as a "fact" that it is only symbolic creates the objective >double standard as observed. In other words, even though we disagree on >just whether or not Abdul Baha argues literal "impossibility" for the >Ressurection, and even if I were wrong in that he doesn't, still he >argues that the Resurrection is "factually" symbolic only, in the face >of literal acceptance of other miracles. When we consider context and >intention of the original texts relating to the various miracles in >Scripture (Virgin birth set beside Resurrection), we find that He has NO >reasonable rationale by which he could accept the one as literal, and >"factually" reject the other as being symbolic. If he is not arguing the >symbolic Resurrection on the grounds of its Scientific impossibility, >then he HAS NO rationale by which he would do so, especially while >accepting the Virgin birth as literal. This is especially true since >Scriptural passages dealing with the Resurrection of Christ are FAR MORE >exhaustive in emphasizing the literal intent of the Resurrection than >they are the Virgin birth. Thus, his interpretation becomes worse than >arbitrary, it is against the contextual intention of Scripture when >comparing references to the two miracles, and thereby creates a double >standard when comparing his interpretation of the Resurrection as >factually "symbolic"while accepting the Virgin birth as "literal". As I >had said; > >"But if you are correct, then far more revealingly you strip him (and >Baha'i theology) of ANY rationale by which the Resurrection should be >considered symbolic. Within the context of accepting the Virgin birth, >one cannot decide that the Resurrection "must" be >symbolized simply >because it doesn't seem "reasonable" according to worldly understanding >(science or intellect). And it ALSO cutsglaringly against the Bible's >clear intentions to do so (again according to any honest consideration >of context and >intention). The context argument works both ways John. And in this case >(if you >are correct) it builds a stronger case AGAINST reinterpreting >the Resurrection symbolically. What reasonable rationale would you >present that would explain why the Resurrection is symbolic, while the >virgin birth is not? Given your own line of argument I would submit to >you that you have none that isn't either simply arbitrary, or guilty of >a double standard in "context" of Baha'i acceptance of other genuine and >literal miracles." > > Your response seems to suggest that you don't get the point. If I >accept the Virgin birth as literal, recognizing the literal intent of >the passages relating to it as the basis for my interpretation, all is >well and good. But then, if I turn right around and assert that the >Resurrection of Jesus is Symbolic (assert it as being >"factually"symbolic, not a literal "factual reality" as Abdul Baha >says), despite the fact that the same kind of contextual Scriptural >consideration that supported a literal virgin birth is even MORE >supportive of a literal Resurrection, then I must have a strong and >reasonable explanation for the exception in interpretation. Just WHY >is the one symbolic while the other is literal? Otherwise I have >created an unreasonable double standard in interpretation. Once again, >if Abdul Baha, as you say, HAS no rationale for WHY the virgin birth is >literal while the Resurrection is symbolic (doesn't try to "prove" that >it must be symbolic), then we MUST defer to the contextual intentions of >the passages that deal with those events to determine our >interpretation. Luke 24 (as I "reminded" you) is only one of many >passages that set that Scriptural contextual intention as SOLIDLY >LITERAL, and even specifically glorified/physical, in terms of Christ's >Resurrection. Thus, Abdul Baha, in arguing an impossibility of a literal >interpretation for the Resurrection based on materialistic Science and >reason, at least attempts to present some rationale for that position >(even though observably wrong). That is what he seems to be doing as I >read his answer to the question. You disagree. But even If, as you say, >he is not arguing its impossibility, then he HAS NO reason to >reinterpret the Resurrection symbolically. For the only other basis for >deciding would be the Scriptural passages themselves, which are >inarguable literal in intent. You yourself go on to say that, >"...I feel it's important that you understand some basic Baha'i >theological principles first. I also feel that simply stating these >principles would be a mistake, since you're not likely to accept them >without justification." > This makes sense John. And in that regard I would submit to you that >there IS NO "justification" for the Baha'i symbolic reinterpretation of >the Resurrection, especially within the context of Baha'i acceptance of >other miracles as being "literal" as well as "physical" (virgin birth), >and the context of Scripture's intentions. You are welcomed to present >one that we may discuss. > > But, where our present discussion is concerned, the real signifigance >of a literal Resurrection lies in the PERSONAL implications it carries >concerning just who Jesus was. In this realization you can begin to see >why your following perspective about Him is wrong. You say, > >"Baha'is accept the Bible as the Word of God. Our belief is that >throughout eternity there has always been and ever will be only one >Christ. Baha'u'llah is not a replacement for Jesus, but is the same >"spiritual" Christ as Jesus. This view of "only one Christ" is fully >supported by the Bible, as is the view that Christ is and always has >been eternal. This means to us that Christ was pre-existent to the time >of Jesus' Birth." > > You distinguish the "person" of Jesus from what you call the "spiritual >Christ", allowing that other "persons" may have the "Christ spirit" just >like Jesus did. Scripture distinctly does not. They are one and the >same. The singular identity of the Person "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" IS >the singular incarnation (not Just one of many "reflections" of) that >"Spirit Christ" prophesied in Scripture. He was to come ONCE as a >"suffering Servant" sacrificing Himself to intercede for humanity by >paying the sin debt for we who cannot, and again at the end of the age >as a conquering King who will usher in an eternal Kingdom apart from the >present world we now know.Thus, to the same absolute extent that there >is, as you observe, "only one Jesus", there is thus, only "one Christ". >The literal Resurrection of Jesus is all the proof you need to see that >the Spiritual Christ, and the Jesus Christ of Nazareth, are both the >same, singular being. His spirit and personal identiity remain intact in >the singularity that defines His identity beyond the grave and into all >eternity. Many have said that they were "Christ's spirit" come again in >another person. Scripture shows us that NO OTHER PERSON is the "Christ" >except Jesus Christ of Nazareth. No other person in the world has been >the Christ spirit either before Him or after. We see proof of this >outlook in the Words of Jesus Himself when he specifically spoke on just >this topic. Jesus tells us at Matthew 24:26, "So if anyone tells you, >"There he (Christ) is, out in the desert.", do not go out; or,"Here he >is in the inner rooms." do not believe it." Jesus is distinctly telling >us that if "anyone" tells you "there is the Christ", to REJECT IT. No >one will come"as" the Christ, but Christ Himself, Jesus Christ of >Nazareth. Christ distinctly leaves us no room to believe that another >different person will come bearing the "Christ spirit". He says reject >ANY who come claiming. The broader context of Scripture always supports >this perspective as we see in Acts chapter 1. At the Ascension we find >that those who were watching as Christ ascended out of their sight were >told that, "this <<>> Jesus will return in the same manner as you >have seen Him depart." Not that another, different "person" would come >bearing the "Christ spirit", but that this "SAME" Jesus would return, >"Jesus" and "Christ" thus being shown to be singularly SYNONOMOUS. > >You also say, > >"In your investigation of the Baha'i Faith you've probably encountered >the belief that neither Jesus nor Baha'u'llah are God, but their >relationship to God is analogous to the sun's reflection in a mirror. In >the analogy God is represented by the sun, the Holy Spirit by the sun's >radiance and Christ by the sun's reflection. If we apply this analogy to >the opening verses of the Gospel of John: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word >was God... >And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." > To call Christ the Word of God is to say He is an outward expression of >God's inward nature. This is simply another way of saying He is a mirror >image of the invisible Father." > > But the main argument against this Baha'i analogy centers once again on >the way in which Scripture attributes to the individual PERSON of "Jesus >Christ of Nazareth" a divinity far beyond that represented in a >"reflection" of God that may be shared by others. If we look at >Scriptures concerning Jesus divinity we find that the personal aspect of >it is inseperable from the "Christ Spirit". In other words Scripture >does not just say that the "Christ Spirit" is pre existant. It says that >Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the PERSON, who is also God incarnate, is pre >existant. Thus we see a distinction contrary to your interpretation in >that Jesus is personally said to "BE" the Word made flesh, not just a >reflection of it. Again, the personal nature of how Christ is attributed >divinity is completely different than the concept that He, like so many >others, simply "reflected" God's person or identity. Jesus' PERSON is >said to be God. John 1 says that the "Word" (Jesus, personally) ><<>> God, period. > >Hebrews 1:3 >"The Son (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) is the radiance of God's glory and >the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his >powerful word. After he (Jesus Christ of Nazareth)had provided >purification for sins, he (Jesus Christ of Nazareth) sat down at the >right hand of the Majesty in heaven. " > Now we see that the incarnate Christ did indeed "reflect" by human >perception "the exact representation of his (God's) being". But we >notice ALSO that the Scripture tells us that He WAS that radiance, not a >reflection only, and we see that this distinct and individual PERSON, >Jesus, who is also this exact representation of God, PERSONALLY sits >down at the right hand of the Father. His deity is personal, not a >generic "Christ consciousness" that others can have apart from the >individual personhood associated with it. The identity of Jesus Christ >of Nazareth IS the singular identity of the "Christ Spirit" according to >Scriptural intentions. >John 1 does not say that the Christ spirit was with God in the begining, >it says that "he", Jesus of Nazareth, was with God from the begining. >John1 is not just talking about the Christ Spirit. It is SPECIFICALLY >speaking of the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Thus it is >absolutely wrong to say that the "Christ spirit" is preexistant to the >person of Jesus Christ. They are one and the same. > >You say, > > " '...the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' This suggests that >the Word is in one sense distinct from, and in another sense identical >with, God. " > > Yes. But this in no way detracts from the clear intention of Scripture >to attribute to Jesus a personal deity singular in identity beyond any >concept of his having been only a "reflection" of God in common with >other "manifestations". If you wish to discuss trinitarian doctrine we >may. But it cannot be shown that what you call Christ's "distinctness" >from the Father somehow allows us to seperate His person from the deity >of His singularly divine nature amongst mankind. There is ONE Father, >ONE Son, and ONE Spirit. In mystery they are both seperate and one. But >there aren't many Sons, Fathers, or Spirits. Romans 9:5 is another >passage that gives you the indications you need to realize my point. >"...Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human >ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." > This "Christ" is said, in context of Paul's inarguable intentions, to >be ONE individual whose human ancestry can be traced back to the >patriarchs. This passage is one in which Paul is not just speaking of a >"Christ spirit" being "God over all" but a specific human individual >person, with a singular lineage and identity, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. >Again, you have to ignore the context which attributes personal identity >to the claims to see it in the Baha'i fashion. That, at a minimum, is >unacceptably poor exegesis. > >You say, > > "Paul expresses a similar thought in Philippians 2:6, where he >describes Christ as the One 'Who being in the form of God, thought it >not robbery to be equal with God'. The paradox here is resolved by >likening God to the sun and the Word to its reflection. The mirror >image,being in the sun's exact form, is in one sense equal to and >identical with the sun; in another sense, the two are distinct." > > But in rendering such an interpretation from Philippians 2:6 you have >to isolate it from the rest of Scripture to be able to place the >interpretation on it you do. Ironically the specifics of this Baha'i >analogy you remind me of gives ample evidence that the Baha'i >perspective is wrong in regards to Jesus' Station. > > The Baha'i manifestation, while being considered a perfect reflection >of God, is not to actually be considered God incarnate (personally). The >manifestations are said to be like mirrors and God like the sun whose >light they reflect into the world of humanity. Thus, it is said that >while we look at them and see "God", they are actually only considered >by Baha'i doctrine to be reflecting God and are not themselves to be >considered God. > > We must, however, once again consider that the passages about Jesus' >divinity are inextricably tied up with the identity of His person. As >Scripture intends that the "PERSON" of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is "the >exact representation of his (God's) being", then we see a flaw in the >Baha'i analogy. The person of Jesus in the Baha'i analogy would be >represented by the actual mirror itself. And we indeed observe that a >mirror is not "by very nature" or " the form of" the sun itself. It is >"by very nature" glass and metallic paint. The person of Jesus however >is Himself personally derfined as divine in Scripture. He does not fit >the analogy of being a mirror for His divinity is inclusive of His >Person. Once again what Scripture REALLY says is diametrically opposed >to the redefined Baha'i Jesus. > Acts 4:10, > “It is by the <<>>, whom you >crucified but <<>> (very much a >"factual"reality), that this man stands before you healed. ...Salvation >is found in <<>> (no other person but Jesus) , for there >is <<>> (no other person but Jesus) under heaven given >to men by which we must be saved.” > Not only "the Christ spirit", or "The Cause of Christ" was literally >raised from the dead John, but specifically and personally "Jesus Christ >of Nazareth" the individual and distinctly singular identity of one >person who thereby retains the identity of "The Christ" and, just as >personally, promises to return, warning us to reject ANYONE else who >claims that return. >Matthew 24, > Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come >in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. ...At >that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There >he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will >appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the >elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if >anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, >'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." > >You say, > > 'The same was in the beginning with God.' The sun's image hasexisted >as long as the sun itself has existed. Simarly, the Word- the 'image of >the invisible God' - is co-eternal with the Father. The divine >reflection has no beginning in time and will have no end. > >Yes. But according to Scripture, and as I have shown you, that "image" >has a name, ONE name in terms of human incarnate identity. ONE >personality of distinct individuality; Jesus Christ of Nazareth. The >"Word", the "image of the invisible God" has a personal and singular >identity in Jesus Christ of Nazareth. It is specifically Jesus Christ of >Nazareth who "has no beginning in time and will have no end." The >contextual intention of these passages you cite are specifically >attached to the PERSON of Jesus, not some general concept of a Christ >Spirit. If we really look at Colossians 1:15 we find that the Baha'i >concept of Jesus' person as being but a "mirror" of God, but not >actually God incarnate, is impossible; > “He (JESUS CHRIST) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn >over all creation. For <<>>(Jesus Christ personally, not just a >"Christ spirit" apart from Jesus of Nazareth) all things were created: >things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or >powers or rulers or authorities; <<>> >(Jesus Christ, personally. Not a "Christ Spirit" that can be associated >with other persons as "The Christ") and for Him. <> (Jesus, not >just a Christ Spirit disassociated with that singular personal identity) >is before all things, and in <<>> (the singular identity of Jesus >Christ of Nazareth) all things hold together. ... For God was pleased to >have all His fullness dwell in <<>> (Jesus).” > >You say, > >" The sun's physical image is the 'firstborn' entity generated by its >substance, and it is through >that image that the sun floods the solar system with its light and >power. As the divine reflection, Christ likewise is the 'firstborn of >every creature', becoming thereby the agent through which God's creative >power brings into being the material and spritual universes." > >But once again you fail to realize that the "Christ" you speak of, and >the person of Jesus of Nazareth are synonmous and thus singular. It is >inarguable that Paul speaks personally of Jesus, not some generalized >concept of a Christ spirit, but Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the individual >person. You say that, "...Christ, as the pre-existing Word, is the >immediate creator of the cosmos." But you somehow fail to realize that, >this being true of Jesus personally, there is then no credibility or >validity left for the Baha'i idea of Him as a "mirror" or that any other >"person" could be His "person", or, thus, "The Christ". Every person has >a singular identity John. Scripture associates the "Christ" as BEING the >person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. His literal Resurrection, which by >association forever weds that personal identity with and as the One true >Christ, negates the possibility of someone else being the Christ (the >same pre-existant and eternally resurrected person). You recognize this >when you concede that He, Jesus Christ, in PERSON, "is the immediate >creator of the cosmos." But the implications don't seem to sink in. > >You say, > >"'And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...' The physical sun >does not leave the sky and descend to the earth. The earth cannot >contain the sun for obvious reasons." > >But your logic fails because you try to EQUATE the materialistic nature >of the parts of your symbolic physical model, to the absolute spiritual >reality they are meant to reprersent. How much "holiness" does it take >to fill up the physical world? How much evil untill some spills out into >space? Such questions reveal the impossible breach in logic that you >fall into in your line of reason. By your same argument "all the >fullness of God" could never be held within one human person. Yet it >was. You mix the materialistic apples in your analogous model with the >spiritual oranges that they attempt to represent and get meaningless >conclusions that don't prove your point. You seem to have difficulty >distiguishing the strictly material, from the spiritual, from the >"glorified" (that mysteriously, but factually, weds both). > > >You say, > Likewise, God's unknowable infinite Essence, "dwelling in >unapproachable light' (1 Tim. 6:16), does >not approach or dwell within the physical universe; for 'theheaven and >heaven of heavens cannot contain him' (II Chron. 2:6)." > >But your citation of IIChron is taken out of context and you read >meaning into the text that specifically does not pertain to the nature >of Jesus Christ (You exercise isogesis here). Christ Jesus, who >Scripture repeatedly tells us voluntarily set aside the full measure of >His glory during His incarnate life, does not in any way deny Jesus the >fullness of Hispersonal incarnate deity. Jesus BEING the "Creator of all >that was created", His personal deity is in full agreement with >IIChron that tells us that the Creator is bigger than His Creation. Can >God not shield us from the full measure of His glory yet still be God? >Scripture says that He can, and did in the person of Jesus Christ, God >the Son. > >You say, > > "Paul explains that seeing God in Christ means "beholding as in a glass >the glory of the Lord' >(II Cor. 3:18). The 'glass' to which he refers is of course a >looking-glass or mirror. The mirror in which the 'image of the invisible >God' came to be reflected was the human personality of Jesus of >Nazareth." > >But you must isolate this verse out of context to pour such impossible >meaning into it. If you read on you will find, once again, that the >symbolic use of a "mirror" for the "Lord" is still set in a context that >assumes that Jesus PERSON is that of incarnate deity. For Paul goes on >to say, "4:5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ <<>> >Lord (not only "mirror of" the Lord, but defined "as" being the Lord), >and ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake." > Your interpretation of the passage is invalid when we see what it is >saying. For you again try to distinguish Jesus' Person from the "image >of the invisible God" that He Himself personally WAS. If we view Christ, >God the Son, who, of His own decision, witheld the full measure of the >Glory that He nevertheless held, we will ideed see some portion of the >Glory of God "as in a mirror". This in and of itself however does not >prove that He is ONLY such a mirror. But the fuller context of passages >such as that which you have snipped show in their fuller context the >clear intention of attributing PERSONALLY to the individual identity of >Jesus Christ of Nazareth the divine deity that you only attribute to the >"Christ spirit", apart from His person and not specifically associated >exclusively with His person as Paul does. Remember that Paul, who had >never met Jesus in person during His mortal incarnation, identified Him >PERSONALLY as Jesus Christ of Nazareth when he met Him on the road to >Damascas. He did not meet a resurrected "Christ spirit" which had left >the person of Jesus. He met, for the first time, THE Christ, Jesus >Christ of Nazareth who, Himself being the one personally raised up, >revealed that this person "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" IS the Christ >Spirit, not just a person through whom it shown during life, but the >PERSON and the Christ being synonymous and singular and raised with >eternal identity. Thus, Paul's personal post Resurrection experience >with Jesus reveals again that only in the person of Jesus Christ is >there found "the Christ". Paul's meeting with Jesus, the risen Christ, >for the first time reveals how Jesus' PERSON and "The Christ" are >literally, and eternally synonomous in identity. > >You say, > >"The Bible teaches that Christ was conceived of a virgin through the >power of the Holy Spirit. Because of this, we tend to assume that His >miraculous conception is what makes Him the only begotten Son of God. >Such an assumption, however, raises an obvious question: As the >pre-existent Word or Logos, was He not already the Son of God before >coming to earth via the womb of his mother, Mary?" > >But a right thinking Christian would not, "assume that His miraculous >conception is what makes Him the only begotten Son of God", right from >the outset. I have reflected my own personal understanding in the >newsgroup that the Virgin birth is not a signifigant defining proof of >Christ's incarnate deity where the Baha'i/Christian dialogue is >concerned. This, I argue, is why it is acceptable in its literal >original inention. It's implications don't threaten Baha'i >presuppositions as the literal Ressurection does. That is where the >signifigance of Scripture's intentions reveal a belief system that >cannot abide the original intentions of the Resurrection, as it can the >virgin birth, and distorts the Scriptural intentions concerning the >Resurrection away from the intended Message so as to fit unbiblical >(antchrist) ideology. There is, I have argued, a "reason" for why the >virgin birth is considered acceptable in a literal sense while the >Resurrection is stated factually as being only symbolic (not a "factual" >reality as Abdul Baha specifically asserts). It is not a "reason" >abiding in truth however. You have said that Abdul Baha does not refute >the "possibility" of a literal Resurrection. In so doing, however, you >have offered no other rationale for why it should then be seen as >symbolic, while the virgin birth is not. It would seem to be arbitrary >until we consider the ramifications of Christ's having PERSONALLY risen >fron the grave. (Those implications having already been formerly >explained). A literal Resurrection of the person of Jesus follows the >intended line of apologetic in Scripture (even more exhaustively than >that same intention that it expresses for the Virgin birth), but in the >case of the Resurrection its intended Message is fatal to a religion >that wants to be able to insert some "other" person as the Christ come >again. The virgin birth does not hold this same signifigance with >respect to Christ's PERSONAL return which follows from the fact of His >PERSONAL (literal) Resurrection. > > >You say of the Resurrection that, > >"The miracle of the resurrection is a truth which Baha'is AFFIRM with >complete conviction. >It constitutes incontrovertible proof of Christ's immortality and His >unfailing redemptive power." > >But this is not what Abdul Baha says at all. He specifically tells us >that the Resurrection was NOT one of those literal miracles but that it >was only symbolic of the Disciples waning faith for three days after >which, when they became "steadfast" that this was the Resurrection. As I >have often pointed out, such a symbolic redefining must ignore those >passages like Luke 24 and Acts Ch 1 which render it as an impossible >replacement for the expressed literal reality of Christ's Resurrection. > >If you mean to suggest that Abdul Baha was only sharing the >spiritualized/symbolic SIDE of meaning, and that he would have ALSO >agreed that Jesus was literally raised from the dead in bodily form I >will have to disagree with you. I think it is beyond question that >Baha'i theology does not accept such a literal reality to Jesus' >Resurrection. > >Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions, pg 103, > > "Question.--What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection >after three days? > Answer.--The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations >are not of the body." > > Abdul quite definitively disagrees with Jesus who said (after His death >on the cross and Resurrection), > >Luke 24:36; > >"While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among >them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and >frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you >troubled and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and >feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and >bones as you see I have. "When He had said this, He showed them His >hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy >and amazement, He asked them, 'Do you have anything to eat?' They gave >Him a piece of broiled fish and He took it and ate it in their >presence." > >I have argued, as Baha'is do, that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word >of God. But, I have also argued that if one is going to take that >position, then one must accept what the Bible INTENDS to tell us. You, >John, are trying to create a false unity between Scripture and Baha'i >doctrine that simply doesn't exist. Comparing these two defnitive >statements from Abdul Baha, and the Lord Jesus reveals that >authoritative Baha'i doctrine and Scripture (the Bible) are not in >agreement on fundamentals in what they teach. > >You say, > >"Since the resurrection is a divine mystery, it is neither possible nor >important for us to understand precisely how itoccurred." > > But it is viital to recognize that there is a genuine dichotomy between >what Scripture teaches about it, and what Baha'i doctrine teaches. They >are not teaching the same thing. What is very "possible" and very >"important" to "understand" is that the Baha'i "gospel" is, as Paul said >"another" gospel, and thus "no gospel at all". > >Galatians 1:6, > >"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called >you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different Gospel- which >is really no Gospel. Evidently some people are throwing you into >confusion and are trying to pervert the Gospel of Christ. But even if we >or an angel from Heaven should preach a Gospel other than the one WE >preached to you, let him be eternally condemned. As we have already >said, so now I say again. If anybody is preaching a Gospel other than >what you accepted let him be eternally condemned." > > You next relayed a litany of scriptures all useful for proving that >Abdul Baha's symbolic interpretation of the Resurrection as just being >symbolic of the Apostles waning faith for three days is wrong. Besides >the fact that, as you yourself recognized in your letter, Christ's >Resurrection was literal (according to you, just not "physical"), you >must by association concede my running point throughout the course of >this letter. That "literal" Resurrection" of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" >was most signifigantly a PERSONAL one that carries with it the logical >assumption of a PERSONAL return. Thus, the concept of His return as >being "symbolic" of some "other" person (namely Baha'u'llah who makes >such a claim) becomes an imposiibility. In His LITERAL Resurrection He >is risen retaining the identity of His person. Thus, there is only one >reasonble interpretation of His own warnings about impostors who would >come, ANY claimants who were to be rejected. There can be only one >reasonable interpretation of passages like at Acts 1:11 where we read, >"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the >sky? This <<>> (not just this same "Christ spirit" but the >same person called by name, "Jesus"), who has been taken from you into >heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into >heaven." That is, that the ONLY coming of Christ again will be that >literally of "Jesus Christ of Nazareth". As you say, the Resurrection in >its literal aspect may well be considered a supernatural event beyond >our ability to fully comprehend. But the implications that lie inherent >in it are NOT. Inevitable conclusions follow from it that preclude the >possibility of Baha'u'llah (another person) being the return of the >personally risen Christ whose identity is retained in the true fact of >His literal Resurrection, that you seem to concede was literal, but fail >to realize was, by association, nesacarily personal as well. One >envisions Jesus, the literally risen Son of God looking on from the >right hand of the Father while one of those impostors He warned of comes >claiming to be the "symbolic" return of One who promised a personal >return. Such a claim must be seen as presumption on a grand cosmic >spiritual scale indeed. > >You ask, > > "Is the immortality which the resurrection demonstrates a physical or a >spiritual >immortality? One tempting answer might be; 'Christ appeared to His >disciples in physical form. It follows that His immortality, and the >immortality granted to His followers, must also be physical. It means we >will live forever on the earth in material bodies'. Before leaping to >such a conclusion, however, let us explore >a different possibility." > > We should indeed explore a different possibility. It is one that you >have already touched upon in your expressed acceptance of the literal >Resurrection of Christ. That is, that in His literal Resurrection we see >a supernatural event that we cannot fully grasp, but that we are given >concrete evidence of the reality of and must exercise Faith about. Our >Resurrection promised is perfectly, and literally, modeled in what >Scripture reveals of the nature of Christ's Resurrected self. But is >that a reality with a tangible,"physical" aspect? Unquestionably yes. >Is it a reality of a supernatural spiritual nature? Certainly? Is it >understandable as BOTH without confusion to a mortal mind? No. Yet >revealed exhaustively as fact to be accepted. Your outlook wants to see >the imortality of the "body" as unreasonable because you fail to >distinguish the carnal "body" from the glorified "body". I will concede >that we do not understand the "glorified body" But we are given "Many >convincing proofs" that it is a PHYSICAL REALITY, not just a spiritual >incorporality. "...Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and >bones as you see I have." > > You suggest, > >Let's consider Paul's explantion in I Cor. 15:35-50. > >Then you reflect, > > " The crucial point here is that 'children of the resurrection' who >inhabit 'that world'(Luke 20:34-5) live on in a form utterly different >from the material bodies with which we our familiar as 'children of this >world' (Luke20:36). The difference, Paul says, between the 'body that is >sown' (buried in the ground) and the 'body that will be' is at least as >vast as the difference between an ungerminated grain of wheat and the >ripened sheat which rises from it. The 'heavenly body' of the >resurrection is no longer a 'natural', perishable', 'flesh and blood' >body made from the 'dust of the earth' but an indestrucible 'spiritual >body' in 'the likeness of the man from heaven'." > > But what you fail to recognize John, is that, taken in the context of >Scripture's presentation of Jesus' literally Resurrected reality, there >is Nevertheless and absolute literal /physical reality to that spiritual >"BODY" Paul speaks of. You again fail to distinguish the mysterious (but >tangible) nature of a Resurrection body (as modeled by Jesus Himself), >and a "perishable', 'flesh and blood' body". You are not alone in >failing to recognize this critical distinction. Baha'u'llah and Abdul >Baha fail to perceive the inevitable difference and its associated >conclusions as well. The term "literal", as I have expressed, most >signifies in Christ's Resurrection a PERSONAL identity with His deity , >and thus His return as well. But a literal Resurrection is indeed ALSO >unquestionable presented as absolutely one with a tangible, physical >aspect as well. "... And while they still did not believe it because of >joy and amazement, He asked them, 'Do you have anything to eat?' They >gave Him a piece of broiled fish and He took it and ate it in their >presence." You reject a physical literallness to resurrection because >you do not distinguish the "carnal" "body" from the "glorified" "BODY". > >You say that, > > "An omnipotent being of this order surely can reveal Himself to us in >whatever way best suits His purpose: either through our spiritual >faculties, or - just as easily - through our physical senses, in a form >we would register as visible, audible and tangible. Yet doing so would >not make Him less intrisically spiritual; it would not confine Him to >the earthly plane or require that He maintain an earthly form at all >times. " > >Yet this takes nothing away from the fact that such a God would not be >found to lie about the manner or time that He would appear to us, or >decieve us concerning the nature of the hope He specifically gives us in >His personal model of Resurrection to eternal life.As Scripture asserts, >Christ's diety is inextricably associated with the person of Jesus >Christ of Nazareth, and it reveals the Resurrection body of mankind as >modeled in the literal Resurrection of that Jesus. Thus, we can conclude >that the Christ will return just AS He promised, literally/personally, >and that the hope we have for Resurrection is seen in Him alone, a >reality where spiritual AND physical reality are mysteriously >/supernaturally wed. > >You say, > >"If asked 'Does Christ have a physical body today?', the answer would >be, 'Only when He wants one'. The Bible makes it quite clear, however, >that He normally would have no reason to want one. " > >But, once again, it is ironically only you who seem caught up with the >strictly "phsical" aspect of the literal nature of the Resurrection. >Certainly Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the literally risen Lord, can take >on whatever form He desires. Perhaps it is even true that He would >seldom choose to "want" physical corporeality. But that is irrelevant. >What is signifigant is that He, literally risen, and with a manifest >glorified physical aspect clearly demonstrated, will always retain the >singular identity of His person. THAT is the aspect of the literal >Resurrection that you fail to realize the signifigance of, and that >precludes the possibility of Baha'i theology being true. For it >demonstrates that the person "Jesus", far beyond being a "mirror" of >God, is personally identified as actually BEING the "Christ Spirit", >incarnate, raised literally and eternally, and thuseven now being the >personally singular identity of "The Christ". > >You say that, > > "Since Paul tells us that 'flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom >of God', and Christ is appointed Heir to that Kingdom as well as of 'all >things' (Heb. 1:2), it follows that flesh and blood is a liability He no >longer needs. The author of Hebrews confirms this by reffering in the >past tense to Christ's earthly life as 'the days of His flesh' (Heb. >5:7). such a reference can only mean that by the time this verse was >revealed, He was no longer in the flesh anywhere, either on earth or in >heaven." > > But this is wrong for the same reason as expressed before. That is, you >utterly fail to distinguish between the corruptable, carnal "flesh" of >mortality, and the incorruptable "flesh" of glorified immortality. >"Carnal" flesh is indeed a liability. "Glorified" flesh, as demonstrated >personally be Jesus in Scripture, is not. Thus, Hebrews speaks of >Christ's pre Resurrection flesh as a "liability he no longer needs", not >His Post Resurrection glorified "body" which, again as specifically >demonstrated in Scripture, posed no libility at all. Again, I am not >proposing that one can "understand" the nature of such a glorified >Resurrection"body", only that Scripture unquestionably asserts it as an >absolute and literal, yes, and physical, reality. Baha'i doctrine >absolutely does not accept this concept, nor can it survive the >implications of Scripture's factual presentation of it. Paul speaks of a >spiritual "BODY" John, as Christ said, not an incorporeal spirit ghost. >If, after the Ascension, and since then until now, Jesus has not >exercised the physical aspect of His glorified, Resurrected body (as >revealed to the Disciples) this takes nothing away from the literal >reality of that aspect of the Resurrection, as He Himself demonstarted >it, literal, and with a definate physically tangible aspect inherent. > >You say, > "If we take the Bible verses at face value (as Baha'is do), then it is >logical to ask what Christ did with His earthly body once it had served >His purpose.This, however, is a question the Bible seems not to answer. >It does no say whether the risen Saviour abandoned His original body, >destroyed it or (as some suggest) transformed and glorified it." > > This again, I politely submit, is obviously incorrect. If we take the >Bible "at face value" (accept its intentions) we find that Christ's >natural body died on the cross. As first born from the dead "to eternal >life" (the first model for us of the hope that we are given through Him) >we see that that dead carnal body was raised a glorified, incorruptable >one able to be touched and eat fish, yet unhindered by what we think of >as normal physiological restraints and limitations. We have discussed >enough of the specific Scriptures relaying this obvious line of Biblical >teaching that I will avoid citing the passages again. Scripture is clear >on what Christ did with His earthly body once it had served His purpose. >He raised it as an incorruptably transformed glorified body. Considering >the entire rest of the New Testament, and the assumtions that the Bible >authors drew from what they experineced in Jesus' post Resurrectiuon >appearances and teaching, we find that Jesus would have been the most >cruel of deceivers if he had led them to believe anything less than >exactly what He purposefully insured that they would perceive. That is, >that the promise He had constantly emphasized about eternal life and >Resurrection, would be PERSONAL, LITERAL, and PHYSICAL (in terms of a >glorified physicality). Certainly He was no such deceiver. He modeled >for them what they were to go on to accurately write of for the world. > >Acts Ch 1:3 ; > "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men (the Disciples) >and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. > >John.20:27; > “Then (Jesus AFTER His death and Resurrection) said to Thomas, "Put >your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my >side. Stop doubting and believe." > >John 21:12; >"Jesus said to them, 'Come and have breakfast." > >Abdul Baha, Some Answered Questions, pg 103, >"The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body." > > Sorry John, but this Baha'i doctrine is obviously diametrically opposed >to Scripture on this key doctrinal teaching. Resurrection is not of of >the "carnal" body, but it is of the glorified "body" which has a >demonstrated absolutely and literally tangible aspect. But Abdul Baha >jumps to the false conclusion that resurrection must be symbolized away >from what he considers only "seeming" literal intentions because he >refuses to distinguish the carnal "BODY" from the still literal and >potentially tangible "glorified "BODY" presented clearly in Scripture. >Such a distinction is ignored, against Scripture's intended Message, to >establish a rationale for removing the signifigant implications of the >literal and PERSONAL Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Such a >lack of recognition of this obvious distinction so clearly described in >Scripture is a rationalized tool with which to divide the signifigance >of the PERSON of Jesus from His station ofdeity so that that station >might be attributed to others (Baha'u'llah). Recognition of this >distinction however, leaves no reason to redefine "resurrection" >passages as intending symbolism. They are to be taken literally, with >the distinction that there is a "corrupt" carnal body, but also a >literal glorified resurrection "body". According to Scripture, "The >resurrection of the Divine Manifestation SINGULAR" ( The Christ whose >singular identity is in the person of Jesus Christ alone as demonstarted >in His literal/ personal Resurrection from the grave) IS of the >(glorified)body. >Thus the intention is utterly literal, and even physical in some >mysterious sense, without at all conflicting with passages that speak of >a "flesh" that cannot inhereting the Kingdom. > >You say, > "Now, I'll finish up with the nature of Christ's ascension to heaven, >which Baha'is also accept and affirm. This event isdescribed in the >first chapter of Acts and discussed in several other parts of the New >Testament." > > But first I want to look carefully at just what Abdul Baha says about >the ascension. That is, the argument HE HIMSELF presents (and which he >considers to be relevant to the Resurrection as well) and see just HOW >Baha'is are to "affirm" these things and if they in any way correlate >agreeably with what Scripture says. This is also to test your own >assertion that Abdul Baha is not presenting a "materialistic" argument >or trying to disprove the possibility of the Resurrection being a >"literal" event. We will look at Some Answered Questions, pg 104. And >again I will add parenthetical comments John since you want to deny >essential aspects of what ABDUL BAHA HIMSELF is arguing in these >passages from Some Answered Questions. What follows is distinctly not >his attributing the line of though to materialistic unbelievers. It is >demonstrably his own unbroken line of reason with premises presented and >concluded by his "therefore we say" which presumes to interpret >Scripture symbolically on the presumption that it CAN'T be taken >literally. Nothing in this argument intrudes into the text as being >anything outside of Abdul Baha's own expressed perspective. > >" His (Jesus') resurrection from the interior of the earth is also >symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, <<>> >(Wrong according to Scripture; "touch me and see", "Put your fingers in >the nailmarks...stop doubting and believe"); and likewise His ascension >to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension. > Beside these explanations (which "I" Abdul Baha present, I add >that...), it has been established and proved by science that the visible >heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and >planets revolve. (There is no indication of anything here but an >unbroken continuation of Abdul Baha's own argument, he himself adding >additional points to support that argument. Observably they are utterly >materialistic ones that ignore the distinction of Christ's "glorified" >flesh as a mysterious, but nevertheless literal/material reality) > Therefore (His own conclusion based upon his own preceding >materialistic premises), we say that the meaning of Christ's >resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated >after the martyrdom of Christ....The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless >body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and >steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, His religion found >life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and >visible... Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and >this was a true resurrection." > > Now observe the invalid conclusion that he jumps to in this argument. >He is NOT conceding a genuinely "literal" reality to the Ascension or >Resurrection as you suggest John. Ignoring the very literal, and even >physical reality of these things expressed in Scripture, he is jumping >to the extreme conclusion that they are utterly symbolic in meaning, his >symbolized Resurrection really having nothing at all to do with the >person of Jesus Christ, but only relating to how the Disciples reacted >AFTER Christ died, (and presumably remained as dead as anyone given >Abdul's SYMBOLIC REPLACEMENT for the Gospel Story of Jesus PERSONAL >Resurrection in a glorified and somehow often quite physical "body".) >The only way you could say that Baha'is "affirm" these events >"literally" John would be to say that Baha'is "literally" affirm Abdul >Baha's redefining of them symbolically. That is NOT what Scripture is >saying nor or the critical ramifications the same. > >Now carefully observe John as we continue with Abdul Baha's answered >question, how at this point the flow of thought presented by ABDUL BAHA >is entirely his own BAHA'I apologetic argument, > > "But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels >nor comprehended the symbols (since clergy take the passages literally), >therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to >science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this >subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible >heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of >this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained,(when the >literal reality is replaced by symbolism), science in no way contradicts >it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it." > > In other words, ABDUL BAHA HIMSELF argues here that those who take the >miracles literally are going against Science and that that is what makes >an illusory conflict between science and religion. He himself John, >specifically asserts here that the way to discover the unity between >Science and religion is to symbolize away what "science and >intelligence" doesn't "affirm". This is obviously Abdul Baha's own >apologetic John and it does not have "Science and intellect" "affirming" >religion, it has them DEFINING it within materialistic limitations of >acceptability. As I have mentioned in previous posts, one can find >elsewhere in Baha'i doctrinal writing that the present materialistic >basis of Abdul's argument is abandoned (re: accdeptance of a literal >virgin birth which would have Abdul out of the frying pan and in the >fire in terms of his method just cited for "fixing" the clash between >science and intellect, and religion). Thus, the double standard in >Baha'i doctrine in the relation of Science to Religion. Baha'i doctrine >capriciously and blindly abandons Abdul Baha's line of reasoning in >those miracles it accepts literally instead of symbolizing them to make >them "fit" within the materialistic constraints of "Science and >intellect". How, John, do you explain a "literal" Virgin birth that is >not also an absolute PHYSICAL reality, and which is yet still against >"Science and intellect"? > > Your interpretation of the Ascension seems to follow the same line of >thought. You argue against a kind of strictly carnal/ materialisitc >physical literalness about the Ascension (and Resurrection) that the >legitimate Scripture based Christian perspective doesn't even believe >in. It is a straw man argument when you realize the distinction between >carnal flesh, and the mysteriously "glorified" Resurrection "flesh". >You seem to be trying to retain a "literal" belief in the miracles of >the Resurrection and Ascension, suggesting that the misunderstanding >lies in whether that literal reality was "physical" or "spiritual". You >are wrong because, according to Scriptural indications modeled in >Christ's post Resurrection appearances, it is not one or the other, but >both. You are also wrong because, as I have explained, Abdul Baha is NOT >arguing a literal acceptance of the Resurrection, on any level. He is >completely redefining it as only having to do with the reaction of the >Disciples after Jesus death, and dismisses the absolute, personal >reality of Jesus' having been raised from the dead literally as the same >person, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He specifically says that the >Resurrection is "not of the body" and that it pertains instead only to >the waning faith of the Disciples (which really negates the literal >reality that the Resurrection was a PERSONAL event having to do with >Jesus Christ of Nazareth, not the Disciples). This is completely opposed >to the Gospel intentions John. They are not saying the same thing. And >you are thus not arguing what Abdul Baha does when you accept any >literal aspect to these events. But in your case, the argument that >Jesus Resurrection was literal, but not physical, is both wrong and >irrelevant. It is wrong, as explained because it WAS literally physical, >GLORIFIED, as distinct from carnal, but unquestionably with a tangible, >physical literalness. But it is irrelevant as well. For as soon as you >concede that Jesus' Resurrection was literal, on any level, you must >concede by association that it was personal. That, I submit is fatal to >the whole line of Baha'i argumentation that presumes that Baha'u'llah (a >different person)could legitimately represent Jesus' "coming again". > Sorry if I have seemed redundant in my emphasis of the implications of >Jesus' personal (singular) deity. But it is such a central theme of >Scripture in identifying Jesus (THE Christ) and your letter indicated >that you have missed the signifigance of it's implications completely. I >do hope that my lengthy response has helped you fully understand the >Christian/Scriptural position, and not just been too long in vain. > >In Christ, >Dale:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:54 AM Subject: fw Fw: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 8:53 AM Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >---------- >> From: Star Saffa >> To: bahai-faith@bcca.org >> Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 7:30 AM >> >> According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >> Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >> Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >> therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >> being. >> Star* >> >> ---------- >> > From: Mark A. Foster >> > To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> > Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> > Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> > >> > Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> > this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> > >> > On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> > the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> > hand, I >> > believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> > Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> > "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> > world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> > Most >> > Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> > >> > I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >> > reaches a particular stage of development, wars will cease. It >> > might yet happen in the twentieth century. Who knows? >> > Personally, I have a very poor record of predicting these >> > things! >> > >> > The confusion, in my opinion, derives from our tendency to see >> > most things in terms of linear time. Some of the friends took >> > the same approach with regard to the issue of the Guardianship >> > and the meaning of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament (lesser >> > Covenant) after the death of Shoghi Effendi. >> > >> > When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >> > House >> > of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >> > completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >> > Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >> > planes >> > of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! >> > >> > Yet, in the West, we sometimes become attached to our >> > particular >> > conceptions of linearity. We often perceive contradiction as >> > problematic rather than as liberating and transforming (like a >> > Zen koan). However, such a restrictive framework is far >> > removed, >> > in my view, from the more Sufic model of time which is >> > frequently found in the Baha'i Teachings. >> > >> > Has the Lesser Peace already started? Will peace actually be a >> > evident in the next few years? My own view is that the Lesser >> > Peace became realized with the issuance of the Promise of World >> > Peace, by the Universal House of Justice. >> > >> > To me, the Promise of World Peace was the beginning, in a >> > sense, >> > of the Lesser Peace. The power released into the world to >> > fulfill that message was proportional to its content. And so >> > many remarkable changes have taken place since that time. >> > >> > Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >> > owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >> > (913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >> > AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >> > https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> > High bandwidth usage? No problems. >> > >> > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 8:45 AM Subject: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Lucien Dol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: Baha'is and the Bible >I follow the discussion between John and Dale under the header "Jesus and >the Resurrection" with interest. Could anybody please explain to me >(briefly) how the Baha'is view the Bible? Do they see it as "absolutely >without error" and "God's infallible Word"? Do they view Paul's epistles as >representing the truth? Are his views accepted as true representation of >the essence of Jesus' message and station? > >I understand that the Council of Nicea decided which books and letters were >going to be included in the Bible and which ones were going to be left out. >Is this correct? If so, do the Baha'is believe that the choices made by >this Council were perhaps not the right ones? > >Do the Baha'is believe that the Scriptures could be affected by and changed >during the ages of oral "inheritance"? Or that sometimes the Prophets used >symbolic language which was taken literally by the contemporary believers >and therefore distorted? > >To my opinion the whole discussion about the truthfulness of the Baha'i >teachings versus Christian doctrine could very well stand or fall with the >way we view the Bible. If we view the Bible as at least partly symbolical >or allogorical and perhaps containing mistakes, then proofs based on the >Scriptural texts will amount to nothing... > >Nobody will be able to convince anybody else that the commonly accepted >Christian doctrines are the right ones if the proof is based on a Book >whose authority is questioned by the other party... > >May God grant us the wisdom to see the Truth in whatever form it may be >presented to us. > >Lucien Dol, >New Zealand. > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 8:47 AM Subject: fw Re: Baha'is and the Bible fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: Re: Baha'is and the Bible >At 01:32 AM 3/30/98 -0500, Lucien Dol wrote: >>Could anybody please explain to me >>(briefly) how the Baha'is view the Bible? Do they see >>it as "absolutely without error" and "God's infallible >>Word"? Do they view Paul's epistles as representing >>the truth? Are his views accepted as true representation >>of the essence of Jesus' message and station? > >Well, I can't speak for all Baha'is. I can only give you my own >understanding. As I see it, although we do not regard the Bible >as absolutely without error, we don't believe, unlike some >Muslims, that it has been deliberately corrupted either. My own >personal viewpoint is that the Bible might be considered >analogous to the Islamic hadith (traditions), which were the >reported sayings of Muhammad and others (such as the twelve >Shi'ih Imams). > >In much the same way, the Bible reports the words of Jesus >through certain alleged eye-witness accounts (as in the Four >Gospels) or through visionary encounters (as with Paul's >experience of the risen Christ on the Damascus highway or the >Apostles' communion with the Christ Spirit after His spiritual >Resurrection). > >My opinion, for what it's worth, is that the reported words of >Jesus can be regarded as the substance of what Jesus taught. As >to whether they are the exact words, I don't know. Perhaps >sometimes. > >The words of Peter, Paul, James, etc. are their own. However, >since they were living at that time, and all of them (with the >exception of Paul) associated with Christ, I feel that, at the >very least, their ideas need to be seriously considered. > >To my understanding, the term "Word" of God does not refer >primarily to the "words" recorded in the Sacred Scriptures. >Word >(Logos), in Koine Greek, means something like rational >discourse. It is where we get the word "logic" from. So, the >divine logic, as I see it, is the Knowledge of God, which is >one >of the conditions (or worlds) wrapped up within the Station of >Prophethood. > >By extension, anything which reflects, or emanates from, that >supreme Knowledge (or truth/reality) can be referred to as the >inspired Word of God (which is what `Abdu'l-Baha wrote in a >copy >of the Bible at a church in New York City). Thus, the Bible is >the inspired Word of God because within it is deposited divine >Knowledge. However, that does not mean, to me, that it >should be >considered as absolutely accurate in all cases. > >Daniel sealed up the meanings of his book until the time of the >end, and Jesus said that the time would come when He would no >longer speak to us in parables. `Abdu'l-Baha explained that the >biblical texts are symbolic and, therefore, in need of >authoritative interpretation. To me, that same Christ Spirit >is, >in the Age, speaking to us through Baha'u'llah; and the >meanings >in the Bible can be ascertained, to varying degrees, by >reflecting on it in light of divine expositions by Baha'u'llah >and `Abdu'l-Baha. > >>Do the Baha'is believe that the Scriptures could be affected >>by and changed during the ages of oral "inheritance"? Or >>that sometimes the Prophets used symbolic language which >>was taken literally by the contemporary believers and >>therefore distorted? > >Certainly, there is always the possiblity of unintentional >inaccurate renderings. We humans are fallible beings. And, yes, >Baha'u'llah wrote that the purpose of the "symbolic terms and >abstruse allusions" which are uttered by the Prophets is to >distinguish the pure in heart. Those who are materially minded >may interpret the texts as referring to physical things and >deny the inner spiritual meanings as "spiritualization" >(something I have heard countless times over the years from >people). > >Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >(913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 8:50 AM To: YU ZIR Subject: Re: fw The value of predictions Please feel free to post your beliefs to alt.religion.bahai. Thanks for sharing them with me. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 8:48 PM Subject: Re: fw The value of predictions I read your post in alt.religion.bahai and feel compelled to communicate a message to you. You identified yourself as a not (yet) Baha'i. I respond by revealing myself as a former Baha'i. One of the assumptions which I made in involving myself with the Baha'i faith was that its claims of Biblical support were true. To make a very long story short, I wound up reading the Bible for what it says. A personal intervention by Jesus Christ might sound too spectacular without explanation, but when I consider His love and mercy in lifting me up from my sins, I can think of no un-spectacular words to describe it. ------ ------ So, uninvited, I won't. ----------- ------ The Bible itself is quite another matter. From beginning to end, it is contradictory to Baha'i teachings. This would not be so notable if the Baha'i faith simply disavowed the Bible. But to portray Jesus as a co-equal with Adam, only to find that the Bible reveals Adam as the man by whom sin entered the world, is quite too much to allow to escape comment. And there is no shortage of conflicts between Bible teachings and Baha'i teachings. ----- ----- Indeed, the one agreement I find between the Bible and the teachings of Baha'u'llah is rather frightening. Very much so. It is this: There will be a One World Government, a One World economy, religion and language. But it will not be of God. It will be of the Beast. Christ's return will destroy that empire. He will reign a thousand years. Then heaven and earth will be replaced by a new heaven and earth. ------- I will not presume to lecture you on these matters. My duty is simply to alert you to be cautious, to urge you to investigate for yourself, and to remain available as a servant of God should you choose to reply to me by e-mail (or otherwise).------- -------- May God richly bless us both! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 8:52 AM Subject: fw Fw: Year 2001 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >---------- >> From: Star Saffa >> To: bahai-faith@bcca.org >> Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 7:30 AM >> >> According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >> Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >> Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >> therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >> being. >> Star* >> >> ---------- >> > From: Mark A. Foster >> > To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> > Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> > Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> > >> > Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> > this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> > >> > On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> > the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> > hand, I >> > believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> > Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> > "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> > world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> > Most >> > Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> > >> > I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >> > reaches a particular stage of development, wars will cease. It >> > might yet happen in the twentieth century. Who knows? >> > Personally, I have a very poor record of predicting these >> > things! >> > >> > The confusion, in my opinion, derives from our tendency to see >> > most things in terms of linear time. Some of the friends took >> > the same approach with regard to the issue of the Guardianship >> > and the meaning of `Abdu'l-Baha's Will and Testament (lesser >> > Covenant) after the death of Shoghi Effendi. >> > >> > When `Abdu'l-Baha laid the foundation stone for the Baha'i >> > House >> > of Worship in Wilmette, IL, He told us that it was already >> > completed. Likewise, we are told by Baha'u'llah, in the Seven >> > Valleys, that one of the consequences of transcending the >> > planes >> > of limitation is to see the end and the beginning as one! >> > >> > Yet, in the West, we sometimes become attached to our >> > particular >> > conceptions of linearity. We often perceive contradiction as >> > problematic rather than as liberating and transforming (like a >> > Zen koan). However, such a restrictive framework is far >> > removed, >> > in my view, from the more Sufic model of time which is >> > frequently found in the Baha'i Teachings. >> > >> > Has the Lesser Peace already started? Will peace actually be a >> > evident in the next few years? My own view is that the Lesser >> > Peace became realized with the issuance of the Promise of World >> > Peace, by the Universal House of Justice. >> > >> > To me, the Promise of World Peace was the beginning, in a >> > sense, >> > of the Lesser Peace. The power released into the world to >> > fulfill that message was proportional to its content. And so >> > many remarkable changes have taken place since that time. >> > >> > Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >> > owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >> > (913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >> > AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >> > https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) >> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> > High bandwidth usage? No problems. >> > >> > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting >> > --------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 9:00 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai Sect fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: sodarshan@cheerful.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, March 29, 1998 9:12 AM Subject: Bahai Sect >The baha'is who are the champions of unity on this mother earth are fighting >among themselves. The main sect of Orthodox seems to be holding upperhand in >their discussions, while the other bahai group seems to be having their backs >to the wall. Why are they just quarelling on the issue of 'GUARDIANSHIP' >Can any one explain? >Sodarshan > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 1998 9:03 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 20 artist@coinet.com cytd@musica.mcgill.ca davecrnll@aol.com dbikman@bwc.org FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com jwalker@ozdocs.net.au laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com zackary@nwi.net You have a total of: 20 users. Home | About Us | Email Us | Create List Coollist © 1997. All Rights Reserved. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:01 AM Subject: fw RE: Baha'is and the Bible fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Lucien Dol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 7:59 AM Subject: RE: Baha'is and the Bible >Mark, > >Thanks for your reply. You have, apparently, come to the same conclusions >as I have. Reading through the Baha'i books and the writings of Baha'u'llah >and 'Adbu'l-Baha is like shaking off a veil that clouded my mind. When I >became a Christian in 1994 (after almost 30 years of atheism) I was >thrilled and excited to have found God and Jesus and touched deeply by His >message. However, I have always had problems reconciling my common sense, >my logical and "scientific" mind and deeply felt convictions with the >commonly accepted Christian doctrines. > >For instance, how can you insist in a 7-day (or 7,000 year) creation in >light of all the overwhelming evidence that the earth and the universe are >millions of years old? Or, how can you say that men and woman have been >created in the image of God and yet say they are totally corrupted by the >"original sin"? Why would Jesus say that He only came here to do His >Father''s will if He was God Himself "made flesh"? Etc.etc. >(I have always believed that men and women are in essence good. Likewise I >have always believed man and woman to be equal. And in the last year I grew >more and more convinced that people who did not believe in Jesus as the >*only* way to God, are not doomed to go to hell. In fact, I said often that >if God would not allow a wonderful man as Mahatma Gandhi to enter heaven, I >wouldn't want to be there myself...) > >Christians, however, always point to the Bible for all the answers. Since >this book is the unfallible "Word of God", it can not contain mistakes. >They believe to have found proof of the truth of the main Christian >doctrines in the Bible. > >Believe me, I have tried very hard to accept all this. I really *wanted* to >believe it all and be accepted by the Christian community, to be one of >them. But it never quite worked. My doubts did not disappear and I grew >tired of the prejudices of Christians against non-Christians and the >simplicity with which all other religions were condemned and rejected. > >Because I still felt that the essence of the message of Jesus Christ was >true and important, I could not but conclude that the Bible (and the >commonly accepted Christian interpretation of it) was not infallible. In my >search for answers I found the Baha'i Faith and am fascinated by it. > >Could you tell me how do the Baha'is view the Qu'ran and the Holy books of >other religions? And how do they believe that the writings of Baha'u'llah? >(I understand that one difference is that these books are actually written >by the Founder of the religion Himself). > >With warm greetings, > >Lucien Dol, >New Zealand. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:10 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai Sect fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 5:42 AM Subject: Re: Bahai Sect >Dear Sodarshan: > >I will attempt to answer your question as best I can. > >First, I wish to clear up the usage of the word "sect" used by you in your >question. The Baha'i Faith is recognized as a world Religion by virtually >every government on the planet; additionally, it has an official status with >the United Nations Organization. Its administrative and spiritual center is >on Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel. It arose in southern Persia (present-day >Iran) in the middle of the last century, and its adherents today are found >in over 200,000 localities in the world, second in number only to >Christianity. > >According to Merriam Webster, a "sect" is described as a "dissenting >religious body". The term then is not an accurate description of either the >Baha'i Faith, or those who have broken the Covenant of Baha'u'llah and >choose instead to follow the dictates of their own egos. > >This newsgroup is unmoderated, and is therefore open to any and all to post. >As a result, it attracts the attention of people seeking information or >discourse on the Baha'i Faith, as well as those who come here for purposes >known only to them and to God. > >I suggest respectfully that you find and read the Writings of Baha'u'llah >for yourself. In them you will find God, and you will find Meaning. you will >find the keys to the creation of a world embracing civilization based upon >the Teachings of God, and upon Justice. You will discover the culmination >and the goal of the Holy Books of Muhammad, of Christ, of Moses. > >As you may know, Christ had his Judas, as did Muhammad. There are always >those who would dispute with God. They did 2000 years ago, and they did it >1400 years ago, and they are doing it today. They are necessary, I suppose, >for they create the darkness out of which the Light of God can shine. > >As to the question of the Guardian, it is in fact an excellant and crucial >question. > >Baha'u'llah stated categorically that the single purpose of all of His >Teachings, Laws and Ordinances is Unity. This has always been the purpose of > the Manifestations of God, but in this day the definition of Unity is meant >the entire human race. To assure that there be unity, He gave us His son, >'Abdu'l-Baha', and appointed Him to be the only authorized Interpretor of >His Teachings, and the Perfect Examplar of all that He had revealed. In His >turn, 'Abdu'l-Baha' wrote a Will and Testament in which He appointed His >eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi to be the first "Guardian" of the Cause of >God, who would be tasked with the responsibility of building the World Order >proclaimed by Baha'u'llah. Shoghi Effendi had no children, so the >Guardianship ended in 1957 with his death. > >Since his passing, there have been those who wished for themselves >authority, and power. So they have proclaimed themselves Guardian, in direct >opposition to the written Will and Testament of 'Abu'l-Baha', and to various >tablets of the Guardian himself. They were not lineal descendants of Shoghi >Effendi, nor of the Bab or Baha'u'llah. > >They come to this newsgroup, and they have the freedom to do so. If you >wish, you may read the Writings of the Baha'i Faith for yourself, or you may >visit one of the many websites hosted by individuals and the institutions of >the Baha'i Faith. > >You will be welcomed there, as you are here. > >I pray that I have answered your question to your hearts satisfaction. If >you have other questions you are welcome to post them here, or you may >respond directly to me. I will always reply to genuine questions as best I >can. > >With Baha'i Love, > >Robert A. Little >sodarshan@cheerful.com wrote in message <6flkqk$673$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>The baha'is who are the champions of unity on this mother earth are >fighting >>among themselves. The main sect of Orthodox seems to be holding upperhand >in >>their discussions, while the other bahai group seems to be having their >backs >>to the wall. Why are they just quarelling on the issue of 'GUARDIANSHIP' >>Can any one explain? >>Sodarshan >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:11 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i's In Denmark fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Kim Berry Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 11:27 PM Subject: Baha'i's In Denmark >Hej all, > >I'm making my annual visit and would love to touch base with you. >Daniel Grolin if you're still reading this ng e-mail me--I'll >definately be visiting Odense and I'm staying in DK for two weeks >this year--longer, god willing :-) > >Pas godt pa dig selv! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 9:02 PM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible Lucien Dol's questions about the relationship between Baha'is and the Bible raise some of the very issues that (along with a profound encounter with Christ's love and salvation) led me to a deeper understanding of the Bible. Part of that understanding is that the Bible and Baha'i doctrine (if that word offends please forgive me) are irreconcilable. ---- ---- On the one hand, there is the perfectly obvious point, as Dol touched upon, that either the Bible is a reliable spiritual revelation, or else it is not. If it is not, then we might as well not bother with it at all, since no human has the wisdom to re-edit holy scripture. So I find it odd that, on the one hand, Baha'is claim the Bible supports them (which parts? The true parts or the false parts?), but on the other hand, they say it is not God's inerrant word. ------ ------- The only way to know is to ask God. In my case, the Bible has had such a vastly profound effect on my life for the good that I am persuaded that it has been divinely protected by God through the ages from error. ------ -------- I am aware of the Apocrypha and various inclusions and exclusions, which tend to draw criticism from those who doubt the Bible's inerrancy. I am also aware of the supposed contradictions in the Bible, and the dispute between literalism and symbolism. Were it not for the miraculous effect this Book has worked on me, I might yet have doubts. But the Holy Spirit is the author of the Bible. Apart from Him, the Bible is only paper and ink. ------ ------- Whenever you open the Bible, two spirits come to you. The evil spirit comes to tell you what "it really means." The Holy Spirit tells you what it actually says. ------ ----- So my only advice is to prayerfully read the Bible, and not to try to make it fit Baha'i scripture. It simply does not. ------ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Fw: Year 2001 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 9:22 PM Subject: Re: fw Fw: Year 2001 >In article <6fo4ha$q0c@news3.newsguy.com>, > >> >> From: Star Saffa >> >> >> According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >> >> Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >> >> Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >> >> therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >> >> being. >> >> Star* >> >> >> >Shoghi said that it is likely that in the universal convulsion predicted > by Baha'u'llah, that the Arc would be destroyed. So would that mean >that the Lesser Peace would never occur? > >I don't think that the UHJ can say anything definitive about when the >Lesser Peace will occur, because interpretation is not one of its >powers, and neither is prophecy. Conferred infallibility is only assured >in those domains which were assigned to the UHJ by Baha'u'llah and the >Master. > > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:13 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 6:07 AM Subject: Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 >Mr. Grider: > >You are back! > >I thought you had satisfied yourself previously as to the question of >Baha'u'llah. I was wrong. > >In your many postings to this newsgroup, I have not noticed any reference to >Baha'u'llah. Have you read the Proclamation of Baha'u'llah? > >If one wanted to know if Christ was the Messiah, and the Promised One >awaited so anxiously by Jews, would that seeker go to a Rabbi, or to the >Torah? Or would he go to Jesus, and listen to His Sermon on the Mount? > >2000 years ago Jews did the former, they had ears but heard not. They had >eyes, but saw not. They were dead, and Christ came to bring them life. They >refused, and quoted their Holy Book. They cited Scripture, and rejected >their Lord. > >Christ has returned the second time as he came the first time, as a thief in >the night. Tell me, Dale, did the Scriptures help or hinder the Jews 2000 >years ago? Do you think it will be any different today, upon His return? > >Baha'u'llah > >He came in the Glory of God. His Writings have created a new race of people >who have forged bonds of love that transcend national boundaries, cultures, >ages, languages, of wealth and of sex. They are building the foundation for >a future world civilization which will endure for thousands of centuries. >Read Baha'u'llah, and you hear Jesus, you hear Moses, and Abraham. You hear >God. > >Read Baha'u'llah, Dale. Pray to God to cleanse your heart of all your >knowledge, of all your love and all of your hate, so that, free and >unfettered, you may be attracted to the Word of God, to the Glory of God. > >with love, > >Robert A. Little > >Dale Grider wrote in message <351CD676.16A1@bellsouth.net>... >>To: "John Noland" >> >>Dear John, >> >> You and I disagree with what Abdul Baha's "answered question" 's >>rationale is that presumes an explanation for why the Resurrection is to >>be taken only , > >>In Christ, >>Dale:) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:23 AM To: SRB Subject: Fw: Year 2001 Dear SRB moderators, I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed permission of the participants. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >being. >Star* > >---------- >> From: Mark A. Foster >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> hand, I >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> Most >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >[snip] > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:25 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB FYI Anyone else feel this way? ---- Dear SRB moderators, I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed permission of the participants. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >being. >Star* > >---------- >> From: Mark A. Foster >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> hand, I >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> Most >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >[snip] ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:32 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Star's Reposting messages to SRB Star, Could you be so kind as to explain why you chose to discuss a thread that originated here on SRB? This is an unmoderated forum. People are free to respond as they wish here. SRB is, in my opinion, more than moderated, rather highly censored. Honest, candid discussion is not permitted there. I for one do not believe messages here should be shunted off into that forum where the response to them would then be abused and manipulated.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:34 AM Subject: Posting messages from bahai-faith to SRB Dear SRB moderators, I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed permission of the participants. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >being. >Star* > >---------- >> From: Mark A. Foster >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> hand, I >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> Most >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >[snip] ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:35 AM Subject: Star's Reposting messages to SRB fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: Star's Reposting messages to SRB >Star, > >Could you be so kind as to explain why you chose to discuss >a thread that originated here on SRB? This is an unmoderated >forum. People are free to respond as they wish here. SRB is, >in my opinion, more than moderated, rather highly censored. >Honest, candid discussion is not permitted there. I for one do >not believe messages here should be shunted off into that >forum where the response to them would then be abused and >manipulated.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:29 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB My response below: -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 6:34 PM Subject: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Sorry dear Fredrick - Please don't get your knickers in a twist. > I have had some confusion with the "administation" of getting coolllist to >work and didn't realize that it was a coollist thread to which I was >responding. Madam, I don't care to be referred to as "dear." I assure you I do not wear knickers. I find it quite surprising that SRB would permit you to repost there. They know better. That they did so reveal once again their double standard in applying their esoteric moderation policies. > I think if there is something we want to repost we should ask the person >who posted it first - OK? I will look more carefully (I thought coollist >was only working in your personal name). Sorry. I don't know why you'd think that. It's clearly been stated and set up as open and unmoderated by me or anyone else. > >I see you went and posted my name on the list of people on the coollist >even though I asked you not to - and the reason is for the same reason you >gave for not wanting to post on srb - monitoring free expression of >experience. Do you have a list of cb's and reject their submissions? >Star* Bahai-faith@coollist.com is not a moderated list. I am the owner of it. On the first of each month or close to it as possible, I will post a list of subscribers, as talisman periodically does. Has the UHJ made a list of covenant breakers available online? If so, someone could post it on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@coollist.com. Many would probably find it helpful. Do you have such a list? > >---------- >> From: FG >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >> Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 9:28 PM >> >> FYI >> Anyone else feel this way? >> ---- >> >> Dear SRB moderators, >> >> I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of >> messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed >> permission of the participants. >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >> send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Star Saffa >> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM >> Subject: Fw: Year 2001 >> >> >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser >> >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. >> >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and >> >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into >> >being. >> >Star* >> > >> >---------- >> >> From: Mark A. Foster >> >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 >> >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM >> >> >> >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of >> >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. >> >> >> >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until >> >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other >> >> hand, I >> >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser >> >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a >> >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i >> >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the >> >> Most >> >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). >> >> >> >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it >> >[snip] >> >> >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> Superior connectivity. World class hosting. >> >> Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com >> --------------------------------------------------------- > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:33 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB Well that's exactly it.... Soc.religion.bahai, though, must have one. Perhaps its editors could post a copy on here for the benefit of all. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:31 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Star's question as to whether or not baha'i-coollist has a list of "CB's" and >filters out their messages seems an interesting point, when one considers that >each and every group of Baha'is calls the others Covenant Breakers. Frederick >would have a heck of a job trying to sort out who is a CB according to whose >group. Bonne chance, Frederick!! >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:38 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB In case anyone hasn't noticed, I am regularly reposting between the two. I had hoped to have them linked automatically but have not yet been able to find a free provider of the service. If the mailing list was moved off coollist.com, newsguy.com would charge $25 per month. More than I think it's worth.... The whole point of the mailing list as I see it is to compensate for those who have only email access and can't read the alt.* hierarchy on their own. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:35 PM Subject: Fwd: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Yes. I don't think that it is that big of a deal, but, I feel that, in >principle, it is better not to repost someone else's messages (such as to >soc.religion.bahai) without their permission. Since everyone knows that this >list (bahai-faith@coollist.com) is really operating as an extension of >alt.religion.bahai, reposting to that newsgroup would be acceptable to me. > >Mark Foster > >>Anyone else feel this way? >>---- >> >>Dear SRB moderators, >> >>I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of >>messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed >>permission of the participants. > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:40 PM Subject: fw Translation errors fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Lucien Dol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:39 PM Subject: Translation errors >>> Having done some translating myself (French -English , Spanish -English >and, a long time ago, Latin -Italian ), I can testify that the >understanding of the translator figures prominently in any finished work. ><< > >I agree with LaAeterna's point here and would like to add another example. >According to the NIV Bible Jesus, on the cross, said to the murderer next >to Him: "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in Paradise." >(Luke 23:43). However, the Jehovah's Witnesses in their New World >Translation have placed the comma in a different place. It reads: "I tell >you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise." By placing the comma >after the word "today", the Witnesses have changed the meaning completely >(they believe that people who die do not go directly to paradise or >heaven). > >The advantage of the writings of Baha'u'llah is that we can verify >everything. He wrote the Books Himself, no errors have slipped in as a >result of gaps in human memory or retelling the story over and over again. >No decades have passed between the events and the writing down of it. > >Lucien Dol, >New Zealand. > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:42 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Year 2001 SRB's explanation.... Let me mention that I don't consider it "my group." I have no moderating capabilities or control over what's said or done. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb Date: Monday, March 30, 1998 8:26 PM Subject: Re: Year 2001 >Dear Mr. Glaysher: >Normally submissions of this nature would not be posted. With the amount of >traffic we handle something can occasionally slip by. I would suggest that >you also write to your group advising not to post quotations from coollist >to srb. >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:44 PM Subject: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Lucien Dol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:43 PM Subject: RE: fw Baha'is and the Bible >Hi Yu, > >Thanks again for your reply. I appreciate your insights and you sharing >your experiences with us. I'll make some comments on your message, if I >may. > >>> Part of that understanding is that the Bible and Baha'i doctrine (if >that word offends please forgive me) are irreconcilable. << > >Don't worry - it's not easy to offend me . The Bible and Baha'i >"doctrines" irreconcilable? That depends, I believe, largely on your >interpretation of the Bible as well as what this Book represents for you. > >>> On the one hand, there is the perfectly obvious point, as Dol touched >upon, that either the Bible is a reliable spiritual revelation, or else it >is not. If it is not, then we might as well not bother with >it at all, since no human has the wisdom to re-edit holy scripture. << > >I agree with your "perfectly obvious point". But in my opinion when the >Bible is not seen as a reliable spiritual revelation, that does not mean we >might as well not bother with it at all. Reading the Bible has opened my >heart and mind to God. Reading how He interacted with the Jews and later >how He showed us His love, mercy and faithfulness through Jesus Christ, has >impacted my life beyond return. The realisation that this Book was written >by fallible human beings did not make it any less valuable. Out of the >depths of time surfaces the story of God's interaction with His people and >this people's response to Him. It's a wonderful story and tought me a lot >about Him. >It is exactly by comparing the Bible with the Holy Books of the other major >monotheistic religions (Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, Baha'u'llah's writings) that >God's Essence becomes clearer to me. >As far as the "re-editing" is concerned: there is no need - the Bible is >written by humans already, be they inspired by God and their love for Him. > >>> So I find it odd that, on the one hand, Baha'is claim the Bible >supports them (which parts? The true parts or the false parts?), but on >the other hand, they say it is not God's inerrant word. << > >This perhaps depends on your starting point. In my case, the Baha'i >writings have confirmed my deepest convictions - feelings and thoughts I >just knew to be true. From there I am re-reading the Bible and draw >different conclusions. >Mind you, I do see your point: sometimes 'Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah seem >to use statements from, for instance, John's or Paul's epistels to proof >their points. It *is* difficult to know what the true or the false parts >would be. > >>> The only way to know is to ask God. In my case, the Bible has had such >a vastly profound effect on my life for the good that I am persuaded that >it has been divinely protected by God through the ages from error. << > >Very true. We do need to turn to God and ask Him for the wisdom to >understand what He wants us to do and for the wisdom to read the Truth in >the holy writings. I am happy for you that the Bible has had such a great >impact on your life. God is truly the most Bountiful. > >>> (...) Were it not for the miraculous effect this Book has worked on me, >I might yet have doubts. << > >In my case, the Bible was important for me, but more important than the >Book was the love of the Christians I met and the love of God which shone >through the pages of the book and the people I met. If I would have only >read the Bible, it would not have meant anything to me. > >>> Whenever you open the Bible, two spirits come to you. The evil spirit >comes to tell you what "it really means." The Holy Spirit tells you what >it actually says. << > >Well, I suppose we disagree here :-). > >>> So my only advice is to prayerfully read the Bible, and not to try to >make it fit Baha'i scripture. It simply does not. << > >I will take your advice. And perhaps the Bible does not fit Baha'i >scripture, but I sincerely believe Jesus' message and Baha'u'llah's message >are the same. > >God bless you, > >Lucien. > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:47 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 10:39 AM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:11:20 -0500, YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: > >>This is a general reply to the many who have e-mailed me in a short time >>regarding the comparison of the Bible and the Baha'i faith. First, to >>DZOsborn, yes, I am indeed the Robert who posts to alt.bible.prophecy on >>occasion. In that forum I have discoursed with others about (my >>specialty) Revelation. In subsequent NGs I will use the nom de plume >>(excuse my Francais) Yu Zir as a result of some unpleasant experiences. >>But this is a secret strictly between you, me, and everybody else. >> -------- I recently was (shall I dare say it) censored by >>soc.religion.bahai for my incensed reply to a post there. I used the >>word "diatribe," and was told I am inflammatory. Duly chastised, I >>shall try to be more--- here comes that hackneyed word--- sensitive. I >>gave a.s.b. permission to snip as they pleased, but I haven't checked to >>see if they re-posted my reply. ------- > >Since you've now discovered the unmoderated alt.religion.bahai, you >are free to post the original message which was rejected by the s.r.b >moderators. > >I do recall seeing a post or two of yours there, so they must have >posted something. > >> ------- We're not talking sports cars here. We are discussing a >>volatile mixture of politics and religion. One man's zealousness for >>the Lord is another's inflammatory comment. --- > >Not necessarily. One can be a firm and committed believer in one's >Faith and convey that belief in a calm, restrained and detached >manner, even if the arguments are rejected by the listeners. > >> ------ The e-mail I have received compels me to offer some advice to >>Baha'is who write. Brevity is a virtue. It adds clarity to one's >>point. I don't mind a thorough and exhaustive essay--- indeed I revel >>in them. But by now I have the entire Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Ghita >>on e-mail (slight exagerration). And this from fewer than twenty >>people! --------- >> ------- I simply can't do a point by point reply to all that. -------- >> ------ So for now I'll try to briefly touch upon some main points. >>------ >> ------ First, of course(!), I claim no special priveleges when it comes >>to scriptural reading or interpretation. I offer my words not as >>doctrine but as a challenge to read the Bible for what it says. When I >>say that two spirits come to us when we open the Bible, that is not to >>say that I listen to the Holy Spirit and anyone who disagrees with me is >>listening to the unholy one. It is to say that the Bible is so >>critically important as a message from God that the evil one will spare >>no effort to lead the reader astray. Fortunately, God spares no effort >>to guide us rightly. In prayer I was told (why are we deemed religious >>when we talk to God, but crazy when He talks to us?) that if I were on a >>desert island with only a Bible, and it were written in Chinese (or >>Martian, or whatever), that God would find a way to impart its message >>to me. Indeed, apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible is only paper and >>ink. (I hope I said that sensitively enough.) > >Such would be the case with all of the sacred writings revealed to >man, IMHO. > >> ------- In short, when reading the Bible, please ask the Holy Spirit to >>guide your reading. (The Bible itself warns us that scripture is not a >>matter of individual interpretation.) Then, even if you go wrong, you >>are still protected by the Almighty Protector ---- > >One should do the same when reading any holy scripture. > >> ------- There are times when one cannot avoid saying things that may be >>found deeply offensive. I'm trying to be as considerate as I can, but I >>don't want to say other than as I feel guided to say. ------- >> ------- Many of the scriptural quotes from the Bible which are offered >>in support of the Baha'i (give me a word here: dogma, doctrine, >>teachings) are interpreted so thickly as to defy the plain, clear >>meaning of the text. ---- >> ------ For example, one person stated that Paul's teachings in the >>Bible were an exhortation to disobey the will of God. > >The views presented by individual Baha'is are just that -- their own >views. They're based on their own understandings of the Baha'i >teachings and are not binding on the community. I'm sure you saw some >notes in reply which disagreed with the original writer's contentions >about Paul. > >> The line of >>thought seemed to be: Talmud = Law = will of God: Paul said we are no >>longer under the Law, therefore, Paulist writing = error = Biblical >>fallibility. Therefore the Bible cannot be relied upon. Therefore the >>unreliable Bible proves that Baha'i scripture is divinely revealed. > >I didn't interpret the remarks as a condemnation of the Bible -- not >at all. I understood them as arguing that Paul was not conveying the >true spirit of the teachings of Jesus. It was an argument I did not >agree with, by the way. > >> The >>actual written argument as presented was polished and elegant, but like >>many others, interpreted the Biblical quotes unreasonably. --- ------- >>Before I get too lengthy here (I'll wake you up when I'm done), what I >>am getting at is that Biblical literalism is not the stiff-necked, >>doctrinaire, prune-faced, anti-fun, refuge of hypocrites which our >>culture often portrays it to be. It is a necessary protection against >>the temptation to interpret on the basis of convenience. Christ Himself >>lost many of his disciples because of teachings which caused even His >>apostles (all of them) to balk at. They asked who could accept such >>hard teachings? And we were warned against apostasy, a falling away >>from the clear teachings. ----- > >This has happened in the other religions, too. When Muhammad changed >the Point of Adoration (the point where one faces when praying) from >Jerusalem to Mecca, some of His followers were so shocked that they >rejected Him and Islam. > >> -------- Even when the Bible does use symbolism, it is not the literary >>symbolism we associate with poetry and fiction. Not at all. Symbols in >>the Bible (such as parables) are clearly identified as such. When you >>think about it, the most outrageous statement in all the Bible might be >>its first words: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the >>earth." It is so profoundly outrageous (in human terms) that many >>apostate Christian churches call it a symbolic truth, a spiritual >>reality, but not a fact. Biblical literalism interprets that passage as >>follows: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." ---- >> ---- Another misconception is the idea that seven-headed beasts are >>clearly, surely, most definitely, SYMBOLS. Who could possibly be so >>foolish as to take these literally? Fundamentalist morons. ------ >> ------- But when St John saw the seven-headed beast he was seeing a >>vision of a spiritual reality, not a subjective symbol. He had been >>taken up in the spirit where he saw Jesus as a Lamb, not a symbol like a >>lamb, but the very vision of The Lamb who had been slain. Visions need >>to be explained for understanding. But their translation is discerned >>not by intellect but by prayer. A vision is NOT a subjective symbol. >>The Bible reflects every effort at clarity, except in those things which >>it clearly states are sealed. > >No doubt you believe this to be true of the Old Testament, the Torah. >If this were truly so, then the Jewish divines at the time of Jesus >would have recognized that He was the Messiah. But they did not, as >you well know. > >It takes a certain state of mind to fully appreciate the holy >scriptures. One must be detached from all things, reject preconceived >notions, and be filled with the love of God. One must possess >spiritual sight and hearing. Consider these words of Baha'u'llah: > >"It is evident unto thee that the Birds of Heaven and Doves of >Eternity speak a twofold language. One language, the outward language, >is devoid of allusions, is unconcealed and unveiled; that it may be a >guiding lamp and a beaconing light whereby wayfarers may attain the >heights of holiness, and seekers may advance into the realm of eternal >reunion. Such are the unveiled traditions and the evident verses >already mentioned. The other language is veiled and concealed, so >that whatever lieth hidden in the heart of the malevolent may be made >manifest and their innermost being be disclosed. Thus hath Sadiq, son >of Muhammad, spoken: "God verily will test them and sift them." This >is the divine standard, this is the Touchstone of God, wherewith He >proveth His servants. None apprehendeth the meaning of these >utterances except them whose hearts are assured, whose souls have >found favour with God, and whose minds are detached from all else but >Him. In such utterances, the literal meaning, as generally understood >by the people, is not what hath been intended. Thus it is recorded: >"Every knowledge hath seventy meanings, of which one only is known >amongst the people. And when the Qa'im shall arise, He shall reveal >unto men all that which remaineth." He also saith: "We speak one >word, and by it we intend one and seventy meanings; each one of these >meanings we can explain." > These things We mention only that the people may not be dismayed >because of certain traditions and utterances, which have not yet been >literally fulfilled, that they may rather attribute their perplexity >to their own lack of understanding, and not to the non-fulfilment of >the promises in the traditions, inasmuch as the meaning intended by >the Imams of the Faith is not known by this people, as evidenced by >the traditions themselves. The people, therefore, must not allow such >utterances to deprive them of the divine bounties, but should rather >seek enlightenment from them who are the recognized Expounders >thereof, so that the hidden mysteries may be unravelled, and be made >manifest unto them." >(Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, pages 254-256) > > > >> God does not play games with our >>understanding, nor does He favor the intellectually gifted over morons >>like me (and that's an insult to morons).---- >> -------- Well, I've rambled on for long enough now. I've barely begun >>to respond to the major points I encountered in my e-mail. If there is >>any interest (and censors permitting) I'll offend even more people >>tomorrow. But I leave you with this thought: Just as that government >>is best which governs least, so the best interpretation of the Bible is >>the least. ---- >> ------ God loves you (and even me). ---- >> > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:48 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Re(3): fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:18 PM Subject: Re(3): fw Baha'is and the Bible >Roger Reini wrote: >>On Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:11:20 -0500, YUZIR@webtv.net wrote: >[snip] >>> ------- We're not talking sports cars here. We are discussing a >>>volatile mixture of politics and religion. One man's zealousness for >>>the Lord is another's inflammatory comment. --- >> >>Not necessarily. One can be a firm and committed believer in one's >>Faith and convey that belief in a calm, restrained and detached >>manner, even if the arguments are rejected by the listeners. > >I would agree with Roger here. In fact this calls to mind the >"conceptual gap" that Robert (aka Yu; I'll henceforth use your nom de >plume [nom d'oueb? nom de toile?? I wonder if l'Academie Francaise has >coined such a cyber-term]) mentioned in an earlier posting on >alt.bible.prophecy. Indeed, in the same posting mentioning this "gap," >you also said regarding your style that "...my purpose is to express >bluntly my experience and viewpoint on subjects of such eternal import >that personal feelings must be put aside." > >It seems to me that the Baha'i approach to teaching and the Christian >approaches to witnessing (I believe that's the term) and preaching are >at variance here. Baha'is are taught to share the Word as one would >offer a gift, and not to press the issue if the recipient is not >interested or is manifestly disinterested (but to pray for that soul >instead). This is out of respect for the Word as well as the >recipients. It also stems from the Baha'i teachings about "moderation >in all things," courtesy, and the use of words. > >Christian emphasis on saving souls, on the other hand, has led to the >attitude expressed by Yu; indeed, a few go to the extreme of an "in your >face" kind of public preaching. For a Baha'i, then overzealousness is >not a virtue, even on --*especially* on -- matters relating to the love >of God and concern for one's fellow humans. Perhaps a Christian might >mistakenly interpret the Baha'i approach as a lack of commitment or a >sotness of faith. In any event, it would seem helpful to keep this >difference of approach (or conceptual gao) in mind in this and future >Baha'i-Christian dialogues. > >>> ------ The e-mail I have received compels me to offer some advice to >>>Baha'is who write. Brevity is a virtue. It adds clarity to one's >>>point. I don't mind a thorough and exhaustive essay--- indeed I revel >>>in them. But by now I have the entire Bible, Koran and Bhagavad Ghita >>>on e-mail (slight exagerration). And this from fewer than twenty >>>people! --------- > >"The essence of faith is fewness of words and abundance of deeds; he >whose words exceed his deeds, know verily his death is better than his >life." Asl-i-Kullu'l-Khayr (Words of Wisdom), _Tablets of Baha'u'llah_, >p. 156. https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/TB/TB-9.html#Page_156 >Brevity is indeed a virtue (& one I need to acquire!). > >>> ------- I simply can't do a point by point reply to all that. -------- >>> ------ So for now I'll try to briefly touch upon some main points. >>>------ >>>------ First, of course(!), I claim no special priveleges when it comes >>>to scriptural reading or interpretation. I offer my words not as >>>doctrine but as a challenge to read the Bible for what it says. ... > >And a welcome challenge. Personally, although my time is as ever very >limited, I am glad to have the opportunity to deepen in this way. > >>> . . . When I >>>say that two spirits come to us when we open the Bible, that is not to >>>say that I listen to the Holy Spirit and anyone who disagrees with me is >>>listening to the unholy one. . . . > >I wasn't accusing you of that, only saying that when one lays down such >a line, it is only a short distance for someone to say that someone >else who reads a scripture differently is either duped by or willfully >following the "unholy one." > >>> . . . It is to say that the Bible is so >>>critically important as a message from God that the evil one will spare >>>no effort to lead the reader astray. . . . > >Here we encounter another conceptual gap. By "evil one" I presume you >mean Satan, and Baha'is and Christians (along with Jews, Zoroastrians, >and Muslims) have a different understanding of Satan. The latter >generally believe that Satan (under whatever name) is an entity that >promotes evil, while Baha'is believe that Satan is the propensity in >each of us to do unholy and even evil things. A Baha'i interpretation >of what you write, then, would be that attachment to worldly or selfish >desires, or preconceived ideas or prejudices, could lead one to read >into sacred texts what isn't there or to overlook in those texts >whatever one isn't comfortable with. > >>> . . . Fortunately, God spares no effort >>>to guide us rightly. In prayer I was told (why are we deemed religious >>>when we talk to God, but crazy when He talks to us?) that if I were on a >>>desert island with only a Bible, and it were written in Chinese (or >>>Martian, or whatever), that God would find a way to impart its message >>>to me. Indeed, apart from the Holy Spirit, the Bible is only paper and >>>ink. (I hope I said that sensitively enough.) >> >>Such would be the case with all of the sacred writings revealed to >>man, IMHO. > >I agree with Roger. > >>> ------- In short, when reading the Bible, please ask the Holy Spirit to >>>guide your reading. (The Bible itself warns us that scripture is not a >>>matter of individual interpretation.) Then, even if you go wrong, you >>>are still protected by the Almighty Protector ---- >> >>One should do the same when reading any holy scripture. > >Agreed. > >>> ------- There are times when one cannot avoid saying things that may be >>>found deeply offensive. I'm trying to be as considerate as I can, but I >>>don't want to say other than as I feel guided to say. ------- > >Keep on praying! It isn't always easy (I know I've crossed the bounds >of moderation at times too). As Baha'u'llah says, "Courtesy is the >prince of virtues." Also remember that if one offers what one believes >as one would a gift, then one needn't be even close to offensive. > >>> ------- Many of the scriptural quotes from the Bible which are offered >>>in support of the Baha'i (give me a word here: dogma, doctrine, >>>teachings) are interpreted so thickly as to defy the plain, clear >>>meaning of the text. ---- > >Try teachings. > >>> ------ For example, one person stated that Paul's teachings in the >>>Bible were an exhortation to disobey the will of God. >> >>The views presented by individual Baha'is are just that -- their own >>views. They're based on their own understandings of the Baha'i >>teachings and are not binding on the community. I'm sure you saw some >>notes in reply which disagreed with the original writer's contentions >>about Paul. >> >>> The line of >>>thought seemed to be: Talmud = Law = will of God: Paul said we are no >>>longer under the Law, therefore, Paulist writing = error = Biblical >>>fallibility. Therefore the Bible cannot be relied upon. Therefore the >>>unreliable Bible proves that Baha'i scripture is divinely revealed. >> >>I didn't interpret the remarks as a condemnation of the Bible -- not >>at all. I understood them as arguing that Paul was not conveying the >>true spirit of the teachings of Jesus. It was an argument I did not >>agree with, by the way. > >Daniel Grolin had a nice survey of Baha'i approaches to Paul on >news:soc.religion.bahai recently in the "Mission/Station of Jesus" >thread. > >>> The >>>actual written argument as presented was polished and elegant, but like >>>many others, interpreted the Biblical quotes unreasonably. --- ------- >>>Before I get too lengthy here (I'll wake you up when I'm done), what I >>>am getting at is that Biblical literalism is not the stiff-necked, >>>doctrinaire, prune-faced, anti-fun, refuge of hypocrites which our >>>culture often portrays it to be. It is a necessary protection against >>>the temptation to interpret on the basis of convenience. . . . > >Western popular culture and many in the media have tended not to be very >fair to religions. That is changing somewhat (but arguably mainly for >commercial reasons), but there remain unkind and/or really off-base >stereotypes (I heard one a while back that all Baha'is were (materially) >rich -- would that it were true!). I agree that interpretation of >holy scriptures merely on the basis of convenience is negative. > >>> . . . Christ Himself >>>lost many of his disciples because of teachings which caused even His >>>apostles (all of them) to balk at. They asked who could accept such >>>hard teachings? And we were warned against apostasy, a falling away >>>from the clear teachings. ----- >> >>This has happened in the other religions, too. When Muhammad changed >>the Point of Adoration (the point where one faces when praying) from >>Jerusalem to Mecca, some of His followers were so shocked that they >>rejected Him and Islam. > >This, in my understanding, is one of the ways in which God tests His >servants in any dispensation. > >>> ------ Even when the Bible does use symbolism, it is not the literary >>>symbolism we associate with poetry and fiction. Not at all. Symbols in >>>the Bible (such as parables) are clearly identified as such. When you >>>think about it, the most outrageous statement in all the Bible might be >>>its first words: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the >>>earth." It is so profoundly outrageous (in human terms) that many >>>apostate Christian churches call it a symbolic truth, a spiritual >>>reality, but not a fact. Biblical literalism interprets that passage as >>>follows: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." ---- >>> ---- Another misconception is the idea that seven-headed beasts are >>>clearly, surely, most definitely, SYMBOLS. Who could possibly be so >>>foolish as to take these literally? Fundamentalist morons. ------ >>> ------- But when St John saw the seven-headed beast he was seeing a >>>vision of a spiritual reality, not a subjective symbol. He had been >>>taken up in the spirit where he saw Jesus as a Lamb, not a symbol like a >>>lamb, but the very vision of The Lamb who had been slain. Visions need >>>to be explained for understanding. But their translation is discerned >>>not by intellect but by prayer. A vision is NOT a subjective symbol. >>>The Bible reflects every effort at clarity, except in those things which >>>it clearly states are sealed. >> >>No doubt you believe this to be true of the Old Testament, the Torah. >>If this were truly so, then the Jewish divines at the time of Jesus >>would have recognized that He was the Messiah. But they did not, as >>you well know. >> >>It takes a certain state of mind to fully appreciate the holy >>scriptures. One must be detached from all things, reject preconceived >>notions, and be filled with the love of God. One must possess >>spiritual sight and hearing. Consider these words of Baha'u'llah: >[snip] > >Roger here includes a lengthy passage from the Kitab-i-Iqan, pp. 254-6. >Much in this Book is of interest for discussion of the qualities of >detachment and purity necessary for the seeker to attain his/her goal >(i.e., to hear the Holy Spirit and not be mislead by any contrary >voice). >https://www.BCCA.Org/~kalantar/writings/authors/bahaullah/iqan/index.html > >>> God does not play games with our >>>understanding, nor does He favor the intellectually gifted over morons >>>like me (and that's an insult to morons).---- > >Two points. First, a quote from Ali, son of Muhammad, that appears in >the _Seven Valleys_ of Baha'u'llah: "Dost thou reckon thyself only a >puny form, When within thee the universe is folded?" > >Second, I agree that God does not play with our understanding. On >another level, He does not play with humanity by sending Manifestations >to confuse us with competing Messages. A prayerful and detached reading >of the scriptures of different religions, in my experience, yeilds a >humbling and profound realization of God's repeated efforts to educate >humanity. What's more, there is a Divine logic behind it ... > >>> -------- Well, I've rambled on for long enough now. I've barely begun >> >to respond to the major points I encountered in my e-mail. If there is >> >any interest (and censors permitting) I'll offend even more people >> >tomorrow. But I leave you with this thought: Just as that government >> >is best which governs least, so the best interpretation of the Bible is >> >the least. ---- > >On the other hand, it is helpful IMHO to seek to understand different >levels of meaning in holy scriptures; that is part of what makes them >so compelling and powerful. As far as governing, I would be thankful >for a just government that could regulate land use with a vision for >our future needs (so that we don't keep paving over and throwing >together malls and housing developments on prime farmland, for >instance!). > >> > ------ God loves you (and even me). ---- > >God bless us all! > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:48 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 12:37 AM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >In article <6fpis0$e7s$1@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, > YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: >> >> Lucien Dol's questions about the relationship between Baha'is and the >> Bible raise some of the very issues that (along with a profound >> encounter with Christ's love and salvation) led me to a deeper >> understanding of the Bible. Part of that understanding is that the >> Bible and Baha'i doctrine (if that word offends please forgive me) are >> irreconcilable. > >The two are not irreconcilable. It is _your_ understanding of the Bible that >makes it irreconcilable. Perhaps your understanding is limited by your >emotions and pre-conceptions, and by what others have told you is the right >way to interpret the Bible (and who makes those people experts?). Perhaps our >understanding is. However, we don't see irreconcilable differences. > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:49 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Re(2): fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 3:21 PM Subject: Re(2): fw Baha'is and the Bible >zutetflute@aol.com (Andree) wrote: >>In article <6fpis0$e7s$1@newsd-163.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, >> YUZIR@webtv.net wrote: >>> Lucien Dol's questions about the relationship between Baha'is and the >>> Bible raise some of the very issues that (along with a profound >>> encounter with Christ's love and salvation) led me to a deeper >>> understanding of the Bible. Part of that understanding is that the >>> Bible and Baha'i doctrine (if that word offends please forgive me) are >>> irreconcilable. >> >>The two are not irreconcilable. It is _your_ understanding of the Bible that >>makes it irreconcilable. Perhaps your understanding is limited by your >>emotions and pre-conceptions, and by what others have told you is the right >>way to interpret the Bible (and who makes those people experts?). Perhaps our >>understanding is. However, we don't see irreconcilable differences. > >A lot has been written on the relationship between the Bible and Baha'i >Writings (much in the context of Baha'i-Christian dialogue). There is >a stong line(s) of argument in this that the two are not only fully >reconcilable, but that the Baha'i Revelation fulfills promises of the >Bible. One list of sources on this broad topic is available in the >document "A Resource Guide for the Scholarly Study of the Baha’i Faith" >at the web site https://www.ozemail.com.au/~cdibdin/index.htm (click on >resources, then articles). I append it below: > >53.3. Religious Dialogue: Christianity > >Baha'i primary texts speak of Jesus Christ, who is often referred to as >"the Spirit of God," in the highest possible manner. Christianity has >come to believe that the advent of Christ, the Logos, in the person of >Jesus was the "first coming,: and that the Christ would one day return >to earth in the "second coming." Baha’u’llah declares that he is the >second coming of Christ. > >Primary Source Writings: References to Jesus and to Christianity in the >Baha'i writings are far too numerous to produce a complete list here. >Instead, James Heggie’s Bahá’í References to Judaism, Christianity, and >Islam can be pointed to as a comprehensive list of primary source >references to Christianity. A few of the more noteworthy and important >references are as follows: many citations of Bahá’u’lláh are to be found >in Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, 68-69, 84-85 (Kitab-i-Iqan, 20-29, 64, 66, >130-133), 175-80 (the Most Holy Tablet, sometimes referred to as the >Tablet to the Christians, also in Tablets 9-17); 181-82 (first, second, >and eighth Glad Tidings in Tablets 21-22, 24); 187 (second Taraz in >subjects extensively; see Some Answered Questions, 1607 and 87-139 and >Selections from the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Baha, 51-53. A dialogue >‘Abdu’l-Baha had with a Christian pastor has been reprinted with >commentary in ‘Abdu’l-Baha, " ‘Abdu’l-Baha on Christ and Christianity," >introduction by Seena Fazel, in The Baha'i Studies Review, 3.1 (1993): >1-18. Some notes are in Lights of Guidance, 489-94. > >References in Basic Bahá’í textbooks: Esslemont, 211-33; Ferraby, 172-9; >Huddleston, 21-25. > >INTERPRETATIONS > >Bahá’í authors have produced a great deal of work relating the Bahá’í >Faith to Christianity. The majority of this is apologetic, often >dealing with interpretations of prophecy. Though popular, and not >strictly scholarly in approach, the work of Michael Sours stands out as >being of relatively greater depth and academic usefulness. His books >include A Study of Bahá’u’lláh’s Tablet to the Christians, which offers >a lengthy commentary on Bahá’u’lláh’s Lawh-i-Aqdas. His series of books >titled Preparing for a Bahá’í-Christian Dialogue may also be of >interest, though the title is misleading; the books seem primarily >designed to help Bahá’ís explain their religion to Christians. Also >worth mentioning is Richard Backwell’s The Christianity of Jesus. This >book does not attempt to fit Christianity to a Baha'i mold such that >Christianity’s prophecies are stressed to the exclusion of its other >teachings, as many Bahá’í books do. Rather, Backwell presents a study of >Jesus and his teachings that is merely complemented by Baha'i >interpretation. > >SCHOLARSHIP > >Bahá’í scholarship covers a variety of Christian subjects. Jack McLean’s >"Deification of Jesus," in World Order, 14.3/4 (Spring/Summer 1980), >offers a well-9nformed Bahá’í perspective on the christological and >trinitarian controversies in the early church. Juan R. Cole’s "the >Christian-Muslim Encounter and the Bahá’í Faith." in World Order, 12.2 >(Winter 1977-78), offers a detailed discussion of points of disagreement >between Christians and Muslims - particularly Muslim views of Christian >teachings - and the Bahá’í position on the same issue. Often the Bahá’í >position offers ways of resolving differences between Muslims and >Christians, hence this article is of use in dialogue between Bahá’ís and >either party. Seena Fazel and Khazeh Fananapazir have published "A >Bahá’í Approach to the Claims of Exclusivity and Uniqueness in >Christianity" in Journal of Bahá’í Studies, 3.2 (1990-1991); 15-24. >Robert Stockman has explored related issues in "Jesus Christ in the >Bahá’í Writings," Bahá’í Studies Review, 1.2 (April 1992). Valuable >correction and expansion of the paper is found in Michael Sours, >"Concerning differences between Christian and Bahá’í Terminology in Dr. >Robert Stockman’s article ‘Jesus [sic] in the Bahá’í Writings’" in >Bahá’í Studies Review, 3.1 (1993): 79-86. Christopher Buck’s >dissertation, Paradise and Paradigm: Key Symbols in "Persian" >Christianity and the Bahá’í Faith, is the first full-length >comparativist study. A historical comparative survey is Moojan Momen’s >"Early Relations Between Christian Missionaries and the Babi and Bahá’í >Communities," in Moojan Momen, Studies in Babi and Bahá’í History, >volume 1. This work has been expanded in Moojan Momen, The Babi and >Bahá’í Religions, 1844-1944: Some Contemporary Western Accounts. Udo >Schaefer discusses many aspects of Christianity and Christian theology >in The Imperishable Dominion, especially 4-23, and "Answer to a >Theologian," in The Light Shineth in Darkness. > >APOLOGETICS > >A certain amount of dialogue has already occurred as a result of >Christian attacks on the Bahá’í Faith and the Bahá’í replies; the >best examples of this apologetic literature are Huschmand Sabet’s The >Heavens Are Cleft Asunder and Udo Schaefer’s The Light Shineth in >Darkness. Both works, especially the latter, display familiarity with >historical-critical research on the Bible. Hatcher and Martin also >address Christian anti-Bahá’í polemic (The Bahá’í Faith 200-202). By far >the most complete and most academic response to Christian polemic is, >unfortunately, only available in German. However, its import qualifies >it for inclusion here: Udo Schaefer, Nicola Towfigh, and Ulrigh >Gollmer’s Desinformation als Methode: die Bahá’ísmus-monographie des F. >Ficicchia. > >[end] ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:49 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Jesus' Ethereal Resurrection fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:10 PM Subject: Re: Jesus' Ethereal Resurrection >darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >>What is the Baha'i Teaching concerning the Resurrection of Christ? For >[snip] > >Gary Matthews (_He Cometh With Clouds_, George Ronald, Oxford, 1996) >articulates the understanding of Christ's Resurrection as a spiritual >fact with earthly and heavenly manifestations. This is similar to >what I understand you as saying. I'm not sure that he has studied >mystical Islam or Shaykhism, but he has certainly studied the Baha'i >Writings and the Bible. > >That said, the Guardian exhorted Baha'is to study Islam (not just any >particular movement within it) and the Qur'an as part of their >deepening. > >Since I've also noted that Abdu'l-Baha also encouraged study of >Revelation and spoke favorably of having knowledge of the Bible -- >and of course Baha'i Writings themselves are deep and extensive -- it >would seem that Baha'is have a lot of homework to do! > >An interesting note from Abdu'l-Baha concerning Baha'u'llah's promotion >of study of the Bible: >"Fifty years ago no one would touch the Christian Bible in Persia. >Baha'u'llah came and asked, 'Why?' They said, 'It is not the Word of >God.' He said, 'You must read it with understanding of its meanings, >not as those who merely recite its words.' Now Baha'is all over the >East read the Bible and understand its spiritual teaching. Baha'u'llah >spread the Cause of Christ and opened the book of the Christians and >Jews. He removed the barriers of names. He proved that all the divine >Prophets taught the same reality and that to deny One is to deny the >Others, for all are in perfect oneness with God." >(from a talk given 6/23/12) _Promulgation of Universal Peace_, p. 212. >https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/PUP/PUP-75.html#Page_212 > >Hope this helps. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:54 PM Subject: Re: Star's Reposting messages to SRB Roger Reini wrote in message <352509d8.212459046@news.newsguy.com>... >Personally, I saw nothing wrong with her message going over to SRB. >It seemed relevant to the discussions taking place there. The discussion originated on bahai-faith@coollist.com and belonged there or on alt.religion.bahai, both unmoderated forums where the response cannot be distorted by self-elected moderators.... >It can be hard to to keep track of all the different lists and >newsgroups. That's why I'm choosing not to subscribe to the coollist >list right now. Where are all the Bahais now who have railed against me in the past for reposting a few messages..... > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:57 PM To: boatright@cjnetworks.com Subject: Re: Fw: Year 2001 Do you actually expect me to believe that.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 6:48 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Year 2001 Pretty darned reasonable request if we can have sharp enough eyes to catch them all. Frederick, please be aware that human failings and hand-moderation might result in an occasional slip through. Rick > Dear SRB moderators, > > I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of > messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed > permission of the participants. > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com > (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, > send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Saffa > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM > Subject: Fw: Year 2001 > > > >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser > >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. > >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and > >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into > >being. > >Star* > > > >---------- > >> From: Mark A. Foster > >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com > >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 > >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM > >> > >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of > >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. > >> > >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until > >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other > >> hand, I > >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser > >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a > >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i > >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the > >> Most > >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). > >> > >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it > >[snip] > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:37 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: sbirkland@aol.com ; Brent Poirier ; srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:14 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB Actually, of course, we don't since anyone can set up a hotmail or juno account with any alias in merest moments. In general, most anything posted from RT66.com is suspect, as the home of the Joel Marguella folks. (Very Odd group.) We stay on the watch for posts which ramble on about "Davidic Kings" which is the signature of the Missula Montana people, and of course we have the givien names, tho not nessesarily the email addresses of people recently declared CB's listed in the American Baha'i. We try _hard_ not to accuse anyone in particular of being a CB, but rather simply argue that we do not accept posts which argue for an alternate succession of authority in the Baha'i Faith. Coollist of course can't filter on content. With hotmail and Juno accounts being the way they are, I see no way to reliably filter on email address. Filtering out anyone@rt66.com is probebly a "very wise" thing to do however. Rick Boatright co-moderator soc.religion.bahai > Well that's exactly it.... Soc.religion.bahai, though, must have one. > Perhaps its editors could post a copy on here for the benefit of > all. > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com > (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, > send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > -----Original Message----- > From: LaAeterna > To: bahai-faith@coollist.com > Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:31 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB > > >Star's question as to whether or not baha'i-coollist has a list of "CB's" > and > >filters out their messages seems an interesting point, when one considers > that > >each and every group of Baha'is calls the others Covenant Breakers. > Frederick > >would have a heck of a job trying to sort out who is a CB according to > whose > >group. Bonne chance, Frederick!! > >Nancy > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:40 AM Subject: FW: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: srb Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 8:44 PM Subject: FW: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Dear Fred: >Well, I caught this one. Cross posts from other forums are not covered by >our charter, so this submission will not be posted. > >I noticed that last year some of my moderator comments were quoted on >alt.religion.bahai, but that may not be against its charter. I am sure that >I did not give my permission, neither do I now, for any list. > >For your information there is no official list of Covenant Breakers >available to srb moderators, although some of us may have our own lists. >The text of messages is usually a giveaway. Yesterday I had two. The first I >had to read to determine its status. The second was from the same address so >I bounced it without reading it. One, so far, today is questionable and I am >attempting to get more information. > >The moderators' duties do not include editing, but sometimes, I will do a >little extra and correct spelling errors. Long quotations are often snipped. >If you want to call us something other than moderators, why not snippers, >because we are not really editors. Do I detect a prejudice? > >Nancy's quote below, which you agree with, is a little strange on a channel >which bears the name bahai-faith@coollist.com. One would presume that there >would be mostly members of the Bahai Faith on that channel and they should >have a good idea who the Covenant Breakers are. > >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai >---------- >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "SRB" ,"bahai-faith at coollist.com" > >Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Date: Wed, 1 Apr 1998 17:33:39 -0500 > >Well that's exactly it.... Soc.religion.bahai, though, must have one. >Perhaps its editors could post a copy on here for the benefit of >all. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > >-----Original Message----- >From: LaAeterna >To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 5:31 PM >Subject: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB > >>Star's question as to whether or not baha'i-coollist has a list of "CB's" >and >>filters out their messages seems an interesting point, when one considers >that >>each and every group of Baha'is calls the others Covenant Breakers. >Frederick >>would have a heck of a job trying to sort out who is a CB according to >whose >>group. Bonne chance, Frederick!! >>Nancy >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> High bandwidth usage? No problems. >> >> https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting >> --------------------------------------------------------- >> > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:43 AM Subject: Re: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: rmsolem@mke.ab.com To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: Re: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >>Star's question as to whether or not baha'i-coollist has a list of "CB's" and >>filters out their messages seems an interesting point, when one considers that >>each and every group of Baha'is calls the others Covenant Breakers. Frederick >>would have a heck of a job trying to sort out who is a CB according to whose >>group. Bonne chance, Frederick!! >>Nancy > >The SRB (soc.religion.bahai) newsgroup deletes all Covenant Breaker posts. >The ARB (alt.religion.bahai) newsgroup is for the most part inaccessible >and not used. >The Talisman list asks that people not post Covenant Breaker content, but >isn't firm on keeping that rule. > >So here we are on the new Baha'i-coollist. Please can't we finally have >an OPEN DISCUSSION without any deletions or self censorship? Let's see >the spark of truth come out of the clash of differing opinions and not >modify our discussions to meet the criteria for SRB. We are not SRB, if >we were why would this list even exist? > >As it was pointed out above, who actually is a Covenant Breaker is an >open question and it depends on who you talk to. In addition to that how >long are these Covenant Breaking ideas considered to be dangerous? > >I can go back to Baha'i books and find out in detail what some early >divisions were about and I'm totally immune to falling into any of those >ideas that seems petty or ridiculous now. With some study I could refute >all of them. > >I have found out that Shoghi Effendi himself dealt with those Covenant >Breakers concerning the authenticity of 'Abdu'l-Baha's Will & Testament >and then we are told not to address believers questions concerning some >of the current Covenant Breaker ideas? > >Now the issue still remains concerning the details of the establishment >of the Universal House of Justice following the death of Shoghi Effendi, >41 years ago! If people are still trying to shut people up about this it >makes me suspicious of why they feel it's still necessary to do so. New >Baha'is come into the faith every day and this repeatedly seems to be a >difficult area for them to understand. I know it was for me. Let's talk >about it and teach! Dysfunctional families ignore their problems, healthy >ones lay it all out on the table. Is this really a Covenant Breaker issue >or just history? > >In the book (can't remember the exact title because I don't own it) "The >Babi and Baha'i Faiths Bibliography in the English Language" they have >cataloged all of the Covenant Breaker writings and have even summarized >many of them. So does this mean that archivists are somehow immune to >their ideas because they have read them? There appears to be a double >standard here. > >Call me naive but you'd think that an open and free discussion of these >issues for those who choose to discuss them would either clear the air or >develope into a meaningful debate that we all could learn from. I've seen >some of these Covenant Breaker posts and for the most part I don't think >most Baha'is actually have the knowledge to discuss them intelligently. >It's time we all learned how to address this stuff. > >I say post everything and let the user decide what to read, what to >delete and what to reply to. > >Robert Solem > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:45 AM Subject: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 8:44 AM Subject: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Hi Mark- >I agree that we should get permission from the poster before putting on srb >- and posting to alt Bahai is ok by me. Star* > >---------- >> From: Mark A. Foster >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: Fwd: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >> Date: Thursday, April 02, 1998 3:08 AM >> >> Yes. I don't think that it is that big of a deal, but, I feel that, in >> principle, it is better not to repost someone else's messages (such as to >> soc.religion.bahai) without their permission. Since everyone knows that >this >> list (bahai-faith@coollist.com) is really operating as an extension of >> alt.religion.bahai, reposting to that newsgroup would be acceptable to >me. >> >> Mark Foster >> >> >Anyone else feel this way? >> >---- >> > >> >Dear SRB moderators, >> > >> >I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of >> >messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed >> >permission of the participants. >> >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> High bandwidth usage? No problems. >> >> https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting >> --------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:47 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus In your opinion, was I disrespectful in using the phrase "grasping at straws" in the context below? If I'm going around offending people, I want to straighten up my act. Thanks. P.S. You can post this if you like. ------ I am returning this post for the following reasons: You state your opinions as if they are facts. Accusing followers of any religion of grasping at straws is disrespectful. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc-religion-bahai ---------- From: YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: RE: Mission/Station of Jesus Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:31:07 -0500 Due to a large number of e-mails and posted replies in this NG and in alt.religion.bahai, (I felt like the guest of honor at a lynching---- JUST KIDDING ALREADY!)------- I posted a general reply in alt.religion.bahai. ----- ------- A brief comment here: Many of the interpretations of scripture I have read are so far removed from what the Bible says that (if only as a debating tactic) you should be aware that they only confirm an impression that Baha'is are grasping at straws----- I'd better stop before I start using inflammatory words like diatribe again. (Just kidding! Sheesh!) ----- God loves you (and even me). ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:47 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus In your opinion, was I disrespectful in using the phrase "grasping at straws" in the context below? If I'm going around offending people, I want to straighten up my act. Thanks. P.S. You can post this if you like. ------ I am returning this post for the following reasons: You state your opinions as if they are facts. Accusing followers of any religion of grasping at straws is disrespectful. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc-religion-bahai ---------- From: YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Subject: Re: RE: Mission/Station of Jesus Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:31:07 -0500 Due to a large number of e-mails and posted replies in this NG and in alt.religion.bahai, (I felt like the guest of honor at a lynching---- JUST KIDDING ALREADY!)------- I posted a general reply in alt.religion.bahai. ----- ------- A brief comment here: Many of the interpretations of scripture I have read are so far removed from what the Bible says that (if only as a debating tactic) you should be aware that they only confirm an impression that Baha'is are grasping at straws----- I'd better stop before I start using inflammatory words like diatribe again. (Just kidding! Sheesh!) ----- God loves you (and even me). ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 02, 1998 9:49 AM Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus #2 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) Original Message----- From: YU ZIR To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus I goofed. I sent you only a partial copy. Please give me your opinion on whether I am being disrespectful in the way argue the position I take. Maybe I need to be nicer. I don't object to your posting this with (or without) your comments--- respectful or not. Thanks. ---------------------------------- God loves you (and even me). --- Surely you jest. I've encountered hypersensitive organizations before. But you censor me for stating my opinions as if they were fact? For using the phrase "grasping at straws?" (Re-read it--- I said it gives that impression. This is reader feedback.) I could say that I am offended, but I'm simply astonished. To be called disrespectful for this degree of--- transgressions?---- is itself an insult. Disrespect would either impel me toward similarly insulting you, or else to ignore your NG entirely. On the contrary, I have offered to share with you my heartfelt thoughts with absolutely no ill intent whatsoever. One cannot seriously engage in subject matter so weighty while walking on eggshells. I expect most of my written manuscripts to be rejected on the grounds of not meeting the needs of the publisher. And in oral debate I have contended against atheists, communists, and cultists. But until now I have never been called disrespectful by any of them, principally because it is not disrespectful to express a sincere opinion honestly, openly, and vigorously. There is a difference between moderation and arrogance. I urge you to consider the possibility that you may be calling me what you are--- disrespectful. Respectfully, Yu Zir ------------------------------------------------------------- God loves you (and even me). ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 7:27 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Cc: Frederick Glaysher Subject: April 6, 1998 subscribers artist@coinet.com cytd@musica.mcgill.ca davecrnll@aol.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com jwalker@ozdocs.net.au laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com zackary@nwi.net You have a total of: 19 users. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 7:33 AM Subject: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 6:27 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Yes Federick, >Please post the list so we are all informed. Thank you. Would a public list of the names and email addresses of covenant breakers be upholding their civil rights? "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously upheld." (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 12:38 PM Subject: Re: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses Don't misunderstand me. I have no intention of posting a list of covenant breakers' names and addresses. Star suggested doing so and I merely asked if soc.religion.bahai had one, which apparently they do, though not comprehensive.... I don't believe such a list should be published and I agree that it would violate the civil rights of people named covenant breakers by Bahais. I'm more interested in what this says about Bahais, or at least some Bahais.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 11:35 AM Subject: Re: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses > Frederick, >Posting lists of hundreds of people who have been placed on varying CB lists >seems counter-productive and potentially harmful, as I have stated before. >Not only would their civil rights be violated, but I think you would be >subject to libel laws inasmuch as you would be posting such names specifically >to defame their beliefs and , in their opinions, their character. In the >United States, libel laws apply if they can prove you did so with malicious >intent. This area seems too volatile to me. >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 12:44 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB Nancy, You're completely misreading me on this one. I not attempting to brand and excoriate the covenant breakers.... Supposed or real.... As many Bahais do.... Rather, I find it interesting that the "non-official" mouthpiece of the Bahai Faith, soc.religion.bahai actually has some kind of list they use to screen out heretics. Who provided it to them? As I mentioned in another post, I believe it would be a violation of Bahai teachings and the people's civil rights to attempt to keep them off this mailing list or alt.religion.bahai, as is done on soc.religion.bahai.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 11:39 AM Subject: Re: Re: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Frederick, >If you opt to pick one list of Covenant Breakers and post it, thereby >subjecting those people to potential enmity and unpleasantness, I think you >have defeated the purpose of the list, which is open discussion...no? >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: Rick Boatright[SMTP:boatright@cjnetworks.com] Sent: Friday, April 03, 1998 2:33 PM To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Subject: Re: Fw: Year 2001 I expect you to belive I'll TRY . Rick > Do you actually expect me to believe that.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com > (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, > send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > -----Original Message----- > From: Rick Boatright > To: Frederick Glaysher > Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 1998 6:48 PM > Subject: Re: Fw: Year 2001 > > > Pretty darned reasonable request if we can have sharp enough eyes to > catch them all. > > Frederick, please be aware that human failings and hand-moderation > might result in an occasional slip through. > > Rick > > > Dear SRB moderators, > > > > I would appreciate it if you would not permit the reposting of > > messages from bahai-faith@coollist.com without the expressed > > permission of the participants. > > > > Frederick Glaysher > > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > > Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com > > (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, > > send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Star Saffa > > Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai > > Date: Saturday, March 28, 1998 2:23 PM > > Subject: Fw: Year 2001 > > > > > > >According to the Universal House of Justice the beginning of the Lesser > > >Peace will synchronize with completion of the building of the ARC on Mt. > > >Carmel in HAIFA ISRAEL. We have not completed those buildings and > > >therefore, according to the Faith, the Lesser Peace has not come into > > >being. > > >Star* > > > > > >---------- > > >> From: Mark A. Foster > > >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com > > >> Subject: RE: Year 2001 > > >> Date: Tuesday, March 24, 1998 7:36 AM > > >> > > >> Regarding the Lesser Peace, I think that the precise meaning of > > >> this subject will only become clear over the course of time. > > >> > > >> On the one hand, we still have two years and nine months until > > >> the end of the twentieth century on 1/1/01. On the other > > >> hand, I > > >> believe that, as someone else has said on this list, the Lesser > > >> Peace constitutes a process of development (i.e., it is not a > > >> "thing"), which will become gradually connected with the Baha'i > > >> world community and, over the course of time, turn into the > > >> Most > > >> Great Peace (the flowering of the World Order of Baha'u'llah). > > >> > > >> I would suspect that at some point in the Lesser Peace, when it > > >[snip] > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:09 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rjmc01@crcvax.med.virginia.edu Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus >I don't have any idea of what goes on at SRB, nor do I care. I do know that I >saw the post below posted to srb. The bottom line is that discussion of SRB >in any manner on this newsgroup is a waste of time and I would rather see >discussion of the Baha'i faith on ARB. Whether the mods at SRB are wacko >control freaks is not my concern, but at least that group talks about what is >in the charter. > >let's work at making ARB a wonderful newsgroup concerning the Baha'i Faith. >If we can do this it WILL pass the next CFV. > > >In article <6g04sn$6uq@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> >> fw >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >> send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: YU ZIR >> To: FG@hotmail.com >> Date: Wednesday, April 01, 1998 6:43 PM >> Subject: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus >> >> In your opinion, was I disrespectful in using the phrase "grasping at >> straws" in the context below? If I'm going around offending people, I >> want to straighten up my act. Thanks. P.S. You can post this if you >> like. >> ------ >> >> I am returning this post for the following reasons: >> You state your opinions as if they are facts. >> Accusing followers of any religion of grasping at straws is disrespectful. >> Bill Hyman >> co-moderator >> soc-religion-bahai >> ---------- >> From: YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) >> To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >> Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> Subject: Re: RE: Mission/Station of Jesus >> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 1998 21:31:07 -0500 >> Due to a large number of e-mails and posted replies in this NG and in >> alt.religion.bahai, (I felt like the guest of honor at a lynching---- >> JUST KIDDING ALREADY!)------- I posted a general reply in >> alt.religion.bahai. ----- >> ------- A brief comment here: Many of the interpretations of scripture >> I have read are so far removed from what the Bible says that (if only as >> a debating tactic) you should be aware that they only confirm an >> impression that Baha'is are grasping at straws----- I'd better stop >> before I start using inflammatory words like diatribe again. (Just >> kidding! Sheesh!) >> ----- God loves you (and even me). >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:11 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 9:29 PM Subject: Re: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses >When I read the post below I was amazed. First of all, I have observed that >there are Baha'is on the internet that declare that other people are not >Baha'is or are covenant breakers on the basis of their blood relationships >to others or on the basis of their own interpretations of the covenant. >(This applies to all the groups and sub-groups). > >The House has not named the majority of these people to be covenant breakers >yet they are being shunned. Before we go around pointing fingers at others, >we should really and deeply study the Will and Testament, the Kitab-i-Aqdas, >whether or not we are "pick and choose" Baha'is (i.e. :I will obey those >laws that suit me and pretend the rest don't exist). > >It is not up to us to judge. Posting a list is a good indicator that >future Baha'i society would become fascist and segregate the descendants >of covenant breakers into ghettos. > >Andree > >In article <6g2hff$gbf@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> From: Star Saffa >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 6:27 AM >> Subject: Fw: Fw: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >> >> >Yes Federick, >> >Please post the list so we are all informed. Thank you. >> >> Would a public list of the names and email addresses of covenant >> breakers be upholding their civil rights? >> >> "First, the civil rights of Covenant-breakers must be scrupulously >> upheld." >> >> (From a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of >> Justice to a National Spiritual Assembly, October 29, 1974) >> (Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, Page: 186) >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >> send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:11 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? (was Re(8): What is the Baha'i faith...) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.bible.prophecy,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 4:44 PM Subject: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? (was Re(8): What is the Baha'i faith...) >One aspect of the spiritual search that led me to the Baha'i faith >is teachings about the afterlife. As I investigated religions, I became >interested in teachings about reincarnation. For one thing, the Hindu >doctrine of Karma -- what man sows he shall reap seemed an elegant >formulation that seems to account for the diverse stations into which we >are born. > >Although one can clearly see a core of basic teachings common to all >divine religions, there is also a clear division between the >Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings about the soul going either to heaven >or to hell on one hand, and on the otherm the Hindu-Buddhist teachings >about the soul being reincarnated into a life-situation responding to >one's behavior in the previous life. Surely these different teachings >-- >one linear and dichotomous and the other cyclical and complex -- are >irreconcilable? Or are they? If all religions come from the same >Source, how could such contrasting teachings on such a fundamental >concern appear in the religions? > >When I first became a Baha'i I thought that the Baha'i teachings were >basically in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition, although hell was >described as distance from and inability to move towards God rather than >a discrete location where eternal punishment is meted out to sinners. I >had to give up a certain attachment to the idea of reincarnation (I >wouldn't say I had actually believed in reincarnation yet, though I was >attracted to that idea) when I became Baha'i. (Abdu'l-Baha actually >gave a talk once concerning reincarnation: >https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/SAQ/SAQ-82.html#Page_282 ) > >Yet in recent years, as I thought more about it, it seemed that however >opposed the concepts of a literal heaven and hell and that of >reincarnation seem to be, the Baha'i teachings on the afterlife seem to >answer them both (so perhaps in their essence, both were simplified >versions of a more complex spiritual reality). What we sow (e.g., >recognition [or not] of the Manifestation of God, acquisition and >practice of virtues & spiritual qualities [or lack of same]), we shall >reap, but not in an either-or passage to paradise or an inferno, nor in >rebirth on this earthly plane. After this life, apparently we pass >through different worlds of God, with our progress in each affecting our >situation in the next. > >I am sorry not to have passages from the Baha'i Writings to accompany >this, but I thought it worthwhile to post as is and to add quotes later, >if there is interest. It is also pertinent to discussions I've had on >alt.bible.prophecy and alt.religion.bahai on the issue of humans >needing salvation from (a more or less literal) hell. In the dynamic >understanding of the afterlife as I understand it from Baha'i teachings, >salvation is not an on-off switch triggered by a single act of faith >(however worthy that might be), nor escape from an endless series of >rebirths, but rather an ongoing process of love and devotion expressed >through faith and deeds. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:12 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? (was Re(8):What... fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 9:25 PM Subject: Re: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? (was Re(8):What... DZO's comments on the afterlife are interesting, and unless I read too quickly, I did not find anything to seriously challenge (except as noted below). To bolster much of what DZO says, I would like to point out that the Bible describes Hell from various perspectives. There is the oft-quoted fiery lake of torment, but there is also the less quoted "outer darkness, where there is the wailing and gnashing of teeth," (quoting from fallible memory here, too lazy to look it up right now). ------ ----- However I do find two Baha'i concepts to be at odds with the Bible. One, the idea of a succession of after-lives violates the sense of finality which the Bible seems to always come back to (read the parable of Lazarus and the rich man; or St Paul's criticizing comment about always learning but never arriving at final knowledge; and many others). Two, the concept of heaven as a place where we are always getting closer to God but never getting there. Once again, heaven is characterized by many Biblical passages as a filling of the cup, a place in which the struggle is over, the victory won. These are IMHO a clear demarcation between Judeo-Christian concepts divinely revealed, and eastern mysticism humanly contrived. ------- ------- -------- --------- -------- ------- ------ God loves you and (as undeserving as I am) even me --------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:15 AM Subject: fw Contact with covenant breakers fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Harold Shinsato To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 9:14 AM Subject: Contact with covenant breakers >I'm new to the Baha'i faith, and I was wondering if someone would >help me with references in the Baha'i writings about the exact >nature of the restrictions there are on contact with covenant >breakers. > > Thanks, > Harold Shinsato > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:18 AM Subject: Re: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 9:17 AM Subject: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses >Hi Nancy > >It wasn't my intention to violate anybody's rights - I was just talking >about informing our subscribers - so they had the choice to read or not >read postings from cb's - as it against the instructions of the Baha'i >Writings to be so influenced. However, today, one hardly know where one is >coming from so it is a difficult task. I *simply* thought at least we'd be >avoiding those with whom we were not to have contact. >It may not be that simple as I was hoping. >Kind regards, >Star* > >---------- >> From: LaAeterna >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: Re: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & >addresses >> Date: Friday, April 03, 1998 10:44 PM >> >> Frederick, >> Posting lists of hundreds of people who have been placed on varying CB >lists >> seems counter-productive and potentially harmful, as I have stated >before. >> Not only would their civil rights be violated, but I think you would be >> subject to libel laws inasmuch as you would be posting such names >specifically >> to defame their beliefs and , in their opinions, their character. In the >> United States, libel laws apply if they can prove you did so with >malicious >> intent. This area seems too volatile to me. >> Nancy >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? >> >> --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm >> --------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 04, 1998 10:23 AM Subject: Re: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB fw & my comments below: -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: rmsolem@mke.ab.com To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 9:18 AM Subject: Re: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >>If you opt to pick one list of Covenant Breakers and post it, thereby >>subjecting those people to potential enmity and unpleasantness, I think you >>have defeated the purpose of the list, which is open discussion...no? >>Nancy > >I agree. You might as well be SRB. It's not moderation but the effect >will be the same. I do agree with both of you. I'm not interested in replicating SRB.... > >I have two arguements; >1. These posts will be obnoxious to some and they can delete them. >2. For those that read them, if you can't refute them with your own >knowledge you need to do your homework, hence this could be a learning >situation. > >Most Baha'is seem to be weak in the writings and reject the CB posts >because they are told to not because their own intellect tells them the >content is wrong. This is akin to a situation where we have Baha'i clergy >which is forbidden. I do agree there's not much thinking on the part of Bahais in this regard.... Some would respond that there shouldn't be any, if you're truly "loyal." And so on.... To me, what's interesting here is how pervasive the UHJ's admonition not to violate the civil rights of covenant is ignored by Bahais. I believe it's this same disregard and lack of respect for other opinions that leads to problems of suppression of freedom of speech and religious conscience by Bahais. > >Robert Solem > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 1998 9:19 AM Subject: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses fw & comments: -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 9:09 AM Subject: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses >I don't know what all the fuss is about - NO ONE IS CONSIDERED A COVENANT >BREAKER UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN SO NAMED BY THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE >(AND THEN BAHAIS ARE INSTRUCTED TO SHUN THEM). HOW CAN WE SHUN THEM IF WE >DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE????? > >APPARENTLY YOU KNOW OF SOME PEOPLE IN GROUPS WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES CB'S - >HAVE THEY BEEN DECLARED BY THE UHJ OR ARE THEY SELF-DECLARED??? > > BAHA'IS HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SHUN SELF-DECLARED GROUPS OF WHICH YOU >TALK AS FAR AS I KNOW. > >IF POSTING CB'S NAMES ON THIS BAHAI NEWSGROUP IS VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS >THEN CLEARLY WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. I can't imagine anyone would seriously think otherwise.... alt.religion.bahai is not a "bahai" newsgroup; neither is soc.religion.bahai, for that matter. The Bahai Faith owns neither one. The existence of each is at public expense through the governments and universities that support Usenet and make it possible. A valid question is whether it is not a violation of fundamental civil rights for Bahais to blacklist people for their ideas in this context.... > > SRB SAYS THEY DO NOT HAVE A LIST EITHER BUT THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO >COUNSELLORS FOR CONSULTATION I BELIEVE; AND IF IT IS WITH THE COUNSELLORS >THAT THE LIST EXISTS - PERHAPS THAT IS A WAY TO GO???? They said they don't have a complete list.... Hyman, a srb moderator, didn't say he didn't have one.... > >This is just a topic we are discussing and I hope no one will get upset. "Just a topic"? >Star* ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 05, 1998 9:26 AM Subject: Fw: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus fw & comments -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 9:21 AM Subject: Fw: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus >Hi Frederick >I think Bill Hyman should have said to you that Baha'i interpretations >should be well documented rather than saying your phrase of 'grasping at >straws' was incorrect terminology. That was not my phrase. Someone else was censored by SRB for using that terribly insensitive language.... I believe the breakdwon in >understanding between you and Bill might be one of cultural semantic >experience. In what country did you learn to speak English? The experiece >put on words is different in the USA than to that in England. We need to >lift our discussions away from criticizing one another, hopefully. Again, I was not the person censored by SRB's moderator, though I have been censored by others there in the past for similarly absurd reasons.... Your attempt at justifying censorship doesn't help to understand the problems that srb has with freedom of speech and religious conscience.... There are things that deserve to be criticized. Censorship is usually thought to be one of them by most enlightened people.... >Kind regards, Star* ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:05 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses -----Original Message----- From: Carol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses [clip] >It seems to me all these people (and I assume that there are a number of them, >since there are so many pieces of mail here...).are seeking to know just about >the opposite of what the Baha'i Faith stands for... So shouldn't they form their >own newsgroup and seek out the answers they want.... So time is not taken up >with redundant questioning? Actually, I'd have to say that many Bahais have demonstrated just about the opposite of what the Bahai Faith is supposed to stand for.... The vehement fanaticism and censorship at all costs overwhelmingly displayed by many Bahais on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere does not constitute a pretty picture whatsoever.... Blaming the victims and telling them to go away and form their own newsgroup won't help.... > >Is it possible that this is some sort of game for pulling down our Faith? I say >this because it just seems so odd. What are your reasons for your demand. There's no idle game involved here. The need for freedom of the soul and conscience is not a game.... I don't know exactly what you're referring to. >Who is a Covenant Breaker indeed!.... > >Perhaps attending a Fireside in your area to study all about the religion and >what it could mean to you personally as the whole entire world, might be a >start. > >Regards, >Carol Keller-Goozey >artist@coinet.com > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:06 AM Subject: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses ----Original Message----- From: Carol To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses [clip] >It seems to me all these people (and I assume that there are a number of them, >since there are so many pieces of mail here...).are seeking to know just about >the opposite of what the Baha'i Faith stands for... So shouldn't they form their >own newsgroup and seek out the answers they want.... So time is not taken up >with redundant questioning? Actually, I'd have to say that many Bahais have demonstrated just about the opposite of what the Bahai Faith is supposed to stand for.... The vehement fanaticism and censorship at all costs overwhelmingly displayed by many Bahais on soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere does not constitute a pretty picture whatsoever.... Blaming the victims and telling them to go away and form their own newsgroup won't help.... > >Is it possible that this is some sort of game for pulling down our Faith? I say >this because it just seems so odd. What are your reasons for your demand. There's no idle game involved here. The need for freedom of the soul and conscience is not a game.... I don't know exactly what you're referring to. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:12 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:10 AM Subject: Fw: SRB comments - Re: Fwd: Re: Mission/Station of Jesus >Hey Frederick >YOU got me wrong - I WAS NOT TRYING TO JUSTIFY CENSORSHIP - YOU >MISINTERPRETED MY INTENTION. Again I would like to ask what your cultural >understanding of English is? >Star* As someone who taught English for over ten years, I believe I understand the medium to some extent.... Please clarify if I've misunderstood you. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:16 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Babi atrocities fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 3:36 PM Subject: Babi atrocities >This is an article by vance Salisbury > >To find out more about other bahai deceptions you are encouraged to visit this >enlghtening site: > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >Answering Bahaullah > >Afshin Afrashteh > >------------------------------------------------ >Holy War and the Babi Uprising at Shaykh Tabarsi > >The Baha'i attitude towards Holy War, whether offensive or defensive, is best >summed up by Baha'u'llah's son, Abdu'l-Baha, >who attributed this declaration to his father:"...that the promulgation of the >truth by such means [the sword] must on no account >be allowed, even for the purposes of self-defense. He abrogated the rule of >the sword and annulled the ordinance of 'Holy >War.'" (12) This stands in contrast to the writings of the Bab which outline >in some detail the waging of Holy War in order to >promulgate the cause of his religion and which, toward the end of his life, >took on a very hostile tone towards anyone who >would not recognize his messianic claims . (13) This incongruity on the part >of the "Co Founders" of the Baha'i religion (14) has >caused apologists considerable difficulty in relating modern Baha'i beliefs to >the writings of the Bab on the subject of Holy War, >as well as providing their readers with objective accounts of the violent >clashes involving the Babis and government soldiers. > >In their book The Baha'i Faith: The Emerging Global Religion, Baha'i authors >William Hatcher and J. Douglas Martin >display this tendency to redefine the Bab's concept of Holy War and to >minimize the role of armed conflict in advancing his >religious claims. In spite of the fact that their book is promoted as "the >most balanced and detailed examination of Baha'i belief >to date" and as a textbook for undergraduate studies, (15) their treatment of >Babism demonstrates that the authors have not >supplied the reader with any original research on the subject, but are >essentially paraphrasing traditional Baha'i histories. (16) > >Concerning the Bab and Holy War, Hatcher and Martin write: > > Raised in this Muslim value system, the Babis felt fully justified in >defending themselves and their families against > the attacks of the mullas. Some may have expected the Bab would reveal >his own doctrine of jihad. If so, they > were disappointed. In the Qayyumu'l-Asma the Bab reviewed in detail the >basic principles of the Quranic concept > of jihad and called upon his followers to observe this governing order of >the society in which they lived. Attacks > on Muslims, as one of the peoples of the book, were therefore prohibited >to them. (17) > >In this brief quotation Hatcher and Martin state that the Bab did not develop >his own unique doctrine of jihad and infer that >Babis only resorted to defending themselves in the context of unprovoked >religious persecution. While it is true that the Bab's >treatment of Holy War in the Qayyumu'l-Asma reflects an orthodox Islamic >understanding of the doctrine, it should be noted >that this was the Bab's first major work. (18) He did, in later works, >abrogate Islamic law and expound his own doctrine of >jihad , which allowed the waging of Holy War on any non-Babi. Denis MacEoin >explains: > > ....the Haykal al-din , [is] an extremely late work which effectively >represents the Bab's final thoughts on these > matters... Jihad it would seem, could be waged against any group who did >not believe in the Bayan [the Bab's > crowning revelation]; the questions of unbelief, Islam, faith, >dissidence, and so forth no longer apply here since the > entire non-Babi world is now the "realm of unbelief." In the Haykal >al-din , the Babi monarch of the future is > exhorted "not to leave upon the earth, if possible, anyone save the >Babis," while in the Dala'il-i saba , written in > Maku, the Bab states with regard to the Jews and Christians that "unless >a powerful king shall cause them to enter > the faith of God, there shall be no way for their salvation." The Shi'i >population of Iran was now regarded as > subject to the decree of holy war...We see, then, that the Bab had, by >the end of his short life, moved beyond > even the harshest Islamic measures against unbelievers. (19) > >Hatcher and Martin seek to minimize the presence of the jihad doctrine within >the Bab's writings, concluding their discussion of >the subject by stating that, "When the Bayan ... was subsequently revealed, no >jihad doctrine was included." (20) While the >Bayan does not treat the doctrine in detail, there are a number of passages >which assume that Holy War will be fought. (21) In >fact, Abdu'l-Baha recognized that "'the decree of the Bayan was the striking >of necks, the burning of books and papers, the >destruction of shrines, and the universal slaughter of all save those who >believed and were faithful.'" (22) Baha'i sociologist >Peter Smith affirms that, "...the Bab detailed [in the Bayan ] specific Babi >forms of ritual prayer (salat ), pilgrimage (hajj ), and >holy war (jihad )." (23) Hatcher and Martin's distorted picture of the Babi >notion of jihad sets the stage for their account of the >clash between an armed Babi force and government troops during 1848 and 1849, >at the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi. > >By playing down Babi militancy on one hand and, on the other hand, describing >a "period of political upheaval" in which >members of the Muslim clergy were free to incite persecution against the >Babis, they prepare the reader for their version of the >siege at Shaykh Tabarsi. (24) But, before considering their account in detail, >it would be helpful at this point to outline some >basic, non-controversial facts. > >On July 21, 1848, a group of about 300 Babis under the leadership of Mulla >Husayn Bushrui left the Persian province of >Khurasan and headed west into the province of Mazandaran. On the outskirts of >the town of Barfurush, the Babis were >attacked by a mob, with several Babis being killed or wounded. The Babis >responded to the attack and killed over one >hundred of the townspeople. The Babi force continued their march through the >forests of Mazandaran until they reached the >shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi, where they immediately built fortifications and >prepared for a siege. Within months, state troops were >sent to subdue the Babis and several battles were fought over a period of >about seven months, with the Babis inflicting heavy >losses. After suffering many casualties by constant bombardment and skirmishes >with the government army, and with supplies >of food and water cut off, the Babis were forced to accept a truce which was >immediately broken, resulting in the massacre or >enslavement of all the Babi participants. > >This was one of the most critical events in the brief history of the Babi >movement, but because of Baha'i emphasis on the >unification of humankind and the promotion of world peace, (25) it is not >surprising that introductions to the faith by such >modern Baha'i writers as Esselmont, Faizi, and Gaver fail to even mention the >incident at Shaykh Tabarsi. (26) Other writers >briefly refer to the event as an example of unprovoked persecution. (27) >Hatcher and Martin devote only two paragraphs to the >event in their introduction, but their account is useful because it reflects >popular Baha'i notions concerning this and other >instances of Babi militancy. Hatcher and Martin describe the incident in these >words: > > In the province of Mazindaran, a group of some three hundred Babis, under >the leadership of Mulla Husayn and > the Bab's leading disciple, a young man named Quddus ( who had >accompanied the Bab on his pilgrimage to > Mecca ), found themselves besieged in a small fortress which they had >hastily erected at the isolated shrine > dedicated to a Muslim saint, Shaykh Tabarsi. They had enthusiastically >swept through the province proclaiming > that the promised Qaim had appeared, and called upon all who heard them >to arise and follow...The siege at the > fort turned, however, into an occasion of humiliation for the opponents >of the Babis. Over the following year, one > army after another, numbering finally thousands of men, was sent to >overcome the few hundred defenders of the > fort, and all in turn suffered decisive defeat. Eventually, the small >garrison...was enticed to surrender under a > solemn promise...However, no sooner did they leave the protection of the >fortress than they were set upon by > their besiegers. (28) > >To the uniformed reader, this account would appear to represent a case of >religious persecution. The authors would have us >believe that the Babis were merely an enthusiastic group of evangelists, >travelling throughout the countryside proclaiming the >advent of the Bab as the the Promised One (Qa'im). It is also inferred that >the Babis had not considered the possibility of a >violent altercation and were surprised when attacked by a hostile force and >"found themselves besieged in a small fortress >which they had hastily erected..." (29) This carefully worded recital paints a >superficial and simplistic picture of an incident >which can only be understood within the context of the messianic Shi'i Islam >of 19th century Persia . A closer examination >indicates that the Babi participants in the actions at Shaykh Tabarsi did not >perceive themselves as peace-loving missionaries, >being persecuted for their faith, but as actors in a grand eschatological >drama, ushering in a new dispensation. Peter Smith >explains: > > At their [the Babis] centre was a large group of highly motivated clerics >and theological students. For such men as > these, schooled in the subtleties of Shaykhi esotericism and steeped in >the Shi'i traditions of martyrdom and > sacrifice, armed struggle appears to have assumed a complex symbolic >role, beside the attainment of any more > 'realistic' objectives. The ideal of the Imam Husayn's struggle and >martyrdom at Karbala provided a paradigm for > their actions. Fighting a defensive jihad against the forces of unbelief, >the defenders gave testimony to God's truth, > both by the dispatch of their opponents 'to hell' and by their own >martyrdoms. (30) > >As pointed out earlier, the Bab did develop his own doctrine of jihad, but it >was certainly not one of his most prominent >teachings. At this time there is no conclusive evidence that he gave his >followers an explicit command to wage Holy War in >Mazandaran and it is unlikely that such was the case. Throughout the Bab's >brief career, he had consistently taken a course of >prudence and moderation, while some of his most influential disciples >continued to move in a more radical and confrontational >direction. However, by 1848 the Bab recognized the inevitability of the fitna >or the final conflagration in which he and his >followers would suffer martyrdom. His increasingly bitter attitude toward the >State, his angry denunciations of the political and >religious authorities, his explicit claims to Mahdihood, and his dire >predictions of the events which would accompany the Day of >Resurrection encouraged the mobilization of Babi forces in the province. (31) >The moment the Bab instructed Mulla Husayn to >unfurl the Black Standard and move westward out of Khurasan, he made a >messianic claim which challenged the legitimacy of >both the religious and secular rulers of Persia and he gave his followers an >unmistakable call to arms. (32) In Shi'i tradition, the >Black Standard is the symbol of the advent of the Imam Mahdi or the Guided >One, who will lead his chosen ones in the final >jihad before the Day of Judgement. At that time, the Imam Mahdi is to take >control of all ecclesiastical authority and to call >upon the secular rulers to assist him in ushering in a Golden Age which would >witness the return of the Imam Husayn, Christ, >and other Imams. (33) There was no doubt in the mind of Mulla Husayn that this >action would provoke a violent response. As >the Babi force travelled toward Mazandaran, he spoke of their destination as >"Karbala," the site of the martyrdom of Imam >Husayn, and proclaimed, "I, together with my seventy-two companions, shall >suffer death for the sake of the Well Beloved [the >Bab]. Whoso is unable to renounce the world, let him now, at this very moment, >depart, for later on he will be unable to >escape." (34) Beyond making provocative claims, the Babi force was also armed >which, according to the Bayan, was only >lawful during jihad and at the Bab's command. (35) Faced with the presence of >a large group of armed men approaching under >the Black Standard, it is not surprising that the people of Mazandaran would >react in a violent fashion. > >After the initial clash with the people of Barfurush, the Babis did not >withdraw or disband to avoid further bloodshed, but >continued to the shrine of Shaykh Tabarsi, calling on people to join them >under the banner of the Imam Mahdi. (36) Months >later, when hostilities with the Shah's troops commenced, the Babi defenders >fought heroically, attacking and routing one army >after another with the shout "O Master of the Age." But, contrary to the >representations of Baha'i writers, the Babis went >beyond a purely defensive action, often attacking the royalist troops, sacking >neighboring villages and committing numerous >atrocities against both soldiers and non-combatants. At one point, the Babis >severed the heads of their enemies and mounted >them on poles around the fort. (37) During the siege, Babi leaders continually >cited Shi'i traditions concerning the coming of the >Mahdi, infusing the fighters with the idea that they were participants in the >final battle which would wipe unbelief off of the face >of the earth and usher in the New Day . (38) The Babis, at least one third of >whom were religious leaders or theological >students, (39) certainly understood the significance of these eschatological >references and they demonstrated by their actions >during this episode that they were, in fact, engaged in Holy War. > >In spite of the Bab's relatively moderate behavior, the political and >religious climate in Persia; the nature of his claims; and the >radical ideals of some his leading disciples, set the Babis on an irreversible >course to armed conflict and, as many of them surely >understood, martyrdom for the Cause of God. Although the Bab did not call for >a Holy War, the doctrinal confusion which >permeated the Babi ranks coupled with the pervasive ideals of jihad and >martyrdom were major factors in the events which >culminated at Shaykh Tabarsi. > >It seems clear that, in the case of jihad and Babi militancy, modern Baha'i >writers have sought to suppress or distort historical >facts in an attempt to portray the Babi religion in a way which is more >acceptable to the Western mind. Although we may see >the Babis as misguided and perhaps even fanatical in their zeal for martyrdom, >the Bab and his followers, in their time and >place, were in fact, men and women who were alarmed by the material and moral >corruption which had come to characterize >Persia in the mid-nineteenth century. Devotion to their God and their >determination to overcome the evil which surrounded them >is a story of courage and dedication which is seldom told. But, as long as >Baha'i writers continue to view Babi history as the >earliest stage of the Baha'i revelation, rather than as a distinct religious >movement, they will be unable to present an accurate >historical account to their readers. > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:22 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai historical revisionism fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 3:32 PM Subject: Bahai historical revisionism >Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >Despite this baloney propaganda, it is a known fact that the babis where not >"innocent" people who were simply of a different belief and so were >persecurted. The bab started a violent revolution and his teachings and his >aims were the violent overthrow of the government of Iran. > >To read more about this you can refer to the original teachings of the bayan >(the bab's major book and which the bahai propagandists don't want you to >see). > >You can also refer to this article: > >https://www.oro.net/~bo/bbarc.html > >It is a scholarly article written by a non-muslim and a non-bahai, Vance >Salisbury. It discusses in an academic and a scholarly manner this lop-sided >bahai historical revisionism of the role and mission of the bab and of their >own literature including deleting as many references in their own literature >of so-called prophecies of Abdul Baha that the world peace would happen in the >20th century and specifically mentioning 1957 as the year when bahaism would >triumph. > >The above article is also linked to from my site: > >Answering Bahaullah > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >The truth SHALL prevail. > >Afshin Afrashteh > > > >In article <1998040522472900.SAA21104@ladder01.news.aol.com>, > sirir@aol.com (SIRIR) wrote: >> >> (In Iran) >> " The Bab was accused of heresy and thrown into prison. His disciples, who >> were already being called Babis, suffered terrible reprisals from government >> forces and mobs of fanataics incited by the mullas. In every town the >> different trade guilds, bakers, butchers, carpenters and others, seized >groups >> of heretics and held competitions to see who could find the cruellest, most >> ingenious tortures. In some places the Babis were dipped in oil before >being >> burned. In other towns their headless bodies were on display in the markets >> while their heads were used as footballs or lance ornaments. An Austrian >> captain, Alfred von Gumoens, who was an eyewitness to these atrocities, >wrote >> in a letter to a friend which was subsequently published in _The Times_ of >> London on 23 October 1852: >> >> Follow me to the unhappy ones who, with gouged-out eyes, must eat, on the >> scene of the deed, without any sauce, their own amputated ears; or those >whose >> teeth are torn out with inhuman violence by the hand of the executioner; or >> whose bare skills are simply crushed by blows from a hammer; or where the >bazar >> is illuminated with unhappy victims, because on right and left the peope dig >> deep holes in their breasts and shoulders and insert burning wicks in the >> wounds...At present I never leave my house, in order not to meet with fresh >> scenes of horror." >> >> In less than six years, twenty thousand Babis perished. Yet, in spite of >> persecution and fanatical hatred, the Bab disciples continued to grow in >> numbers." >> >> (Page 44) >> The Gardeners of God: An Encounter with Five Million Bahai's, Colette >Gouvion >> and Phillipe Jouvion, Oneworld Press: Oxford, 1993. [English edition] >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:23 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai historical revisionism fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 06, 1998 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Bahai historical revisionism > >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >O people of the Bab! Sore persecuted, compelled to silence, but steadfast >now as at Sheykh Tabarsi and Zanjan, what destiny is concealed for you >behind the veil of the Future? > Edward >Granville Browne > >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > > 'The effulgence of thy face flashed forth and > the rays of thy visage arose on high; > Then speak the word, "Am I not your > Lord?" and "Thou art, Thou art!" > we will all reply.' > (verbal message, in verse, by Qurratu'l-'Ayn, given to the >Bab) > >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >The gentle spirit of the Bab is surely high up in the cycles of eternity. >Who can fail, as Prof. Browne says, to be attracted by him? > T. K. >Cheyne, D. Litt., D.D. > >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >"As I aproached the House of Baha'u'llah, I recognized His brother Mirsa >Musa, who was standing at the gate, and to whom I communicated the object of >my visit (the letter of announcement from the Bab). He went into the house >and soon reappeared bearing a message of welcome. I was ushered into His >presence, and presented the scroll to Mirza Musa, who laid before >Baha'u'llah. He bade us both be seated. Unfolding the scroll, He glanced at >its cotents and began to read aloud to us certain of its passages. I sat >enraptured as I listened to the sound of His voice and the sweetness of its >melody. He had read a page of the scroll when, turning to His brother, He >said: 'Musa', what have you to say? Verily I say, whoso believes in the >Qur'an and recognizes its Divine origin, and yet hesitates, though it be for >a moment, to admit that these soul-stirring words are endowed with the same >regenerating power, has most asssuredly erred in his judgment and has >strayed far from the path of justice.' " > >"The governor has sent you to arrest Me. Here am I; do with Me as you >please. By coming out to meet you, I have curtailed the length of your >march, and have made it easier for you to find Me." >(words spoken by the Bab to those sent to arrest Him. The Bab, pg. 84) > >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >"Forty years after the martyrdom of the Bab, on a day in spring, Baha'u'llah >was standing under the shade of a cluster of cypress trees on the slopes of >Mount Carmel. In front of Him stretched the curve of the Bay of Haifa, >beyond which loomed a sinister sight, the grim citadel of 'Akka - His first >abode when He was brought, a Prisoner and an Exile, to the Holy Land. In >darkest days He had told His people not to grieve, the prison gates would >open and He would raise His tent on the fair mountain across the bay. > >He it was Whose advent the Bab had come to herald. For Him - He Whom God >shall make manifest - the young Martyr-Prophet had suffered tribulations, >had sacrificed His life. In His Dispensation, the Dispensation of His >Forerunner had found its fulfillment, regained its splendour. And now as >Baha'u'llah - the Lord of Hosts - looked at the expanse of rock below those >cypress trees (which today still stand, firm and proud), He told His Son, >'Abdu'l-Baha', who would shortly wield authority in His Name, that a >mausoleum should be raised on that mountain-mass to receive the remains of >the Bab." > >(The Bab, pg. 191-192) > >Robert A. Little > >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message ><6gb73d$t94$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, >> >>Despite this baloney propaganda, it is a known fact that the babis where >not >>"innocent" people who were simply of a different belief and so were >>persecurted. The bab started a violent revolution and his teachings and his >>aims were the violent overthrow of the government of Iran. >.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:24 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai Sect fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 12:09 AM Subject: Re: Bahai Sect >I answered this posting several days ago, but it died somewhere in dataland, >probably not of natural causes. > >I will try to answer again, as I feel this posting to be important. > >Firstly, Baha'is are not "fighting among themselves", in my opinion. What is >seen here on this unmoderated forum is not the Baha'i Faith, nor is it >representative of the Teachings of Baha'u'llah. > >Followers of Baha'u'llah are exhorted to search for truth, and to not >blindly follow others. 'Abdu'l-Baha' said, in part, "Out of the clash of >conflicting opinions. . . " Truth can only be known when all affected >individuals participate in a loving, honest dialogue. Dialogue implys that >each contributes, and that all are respectful of both the individual and the >response. Truth is like a jigsaw puzzle, and nobody has all the pieces, and >nobody has none of the pieces. Dialogue is not debate. In debate, two or >more participants attack and defend positions, with the goal of winning. >When debate occurs, there is little or no learning, and the truth will NEVER >be fully revealed, because all of the debaters reject what they don't >already believe. > >The core of the 'question' lies in the point made concerning unity. > >The word religion means "to reunite". The purpose of Religion is unity. >Always has, always will. Divine Religion propelled humanity forward from the >family to the tribe to the city-state to the nation, and is now >transitioning us to world unity. Humanity has the capacity to know and to >love God. That is what God requires of it. But humanity, by itself, cannot >do either. It is the Manifestations of God who reveal a portion of His love >and knowledge to us, in accordance with our needs in the particular age. >What Moses, Christ, et al, gave us is perfect as to content, but limited as >to quantity, which may be a crucial point. Consider the subject of math. >simple addition, taught in the first grade, is perfect, and will always be >true, but it is not the only "mathamatical" truth, and as the student >develops, so the teacher will continue to progressively add increasingly >higher levels of mathamatical truth on to the poor struggling student. > >In the past, the Founders of the worlds Religions gave Teachings tailored >for the needs of that time and that place. The inevitable result has always >been the formation of a new race of spiritual, loving people, and a new, >vibrant society. Over the course of time, however, the spirituality >gradually 'leaked out' of that society, and ritual and dogma took its place. >At some point in the process, the society began breaking up, losing its >unity. Today, how many Christian Churches are there? > >With the appearance of Baha'u'llah and his Forerunner, the Bab, the human >race has embarked on its long anticipated transformation into maturity, a >level of adulthood and responsibility which will ensure that the future >world civilization whose foundation we (humanity) are now building, will >endure for tens of thousands of years, always growing, becoming ever more >beautiful. > >In past Dispensations, the death of the Author of the new Religion always >instigated a crisis. In the most recent case - Islam - the death of His >Holiness Muhammad led to a splitting along the lines of successorship. Some >believed that Muhammad's successor should be a descendant, others that the >successor should be elected. Today they are Shia and Sunni, and they fought >for centuries, and to this day they have not resolved their deep >differences. > >Baha'u'llah says that in this Day, the purpose and intent of His Revelation >is the unification of the planet. To ensure that His death would not lead to >disunity and division, He wrote a Will and Testament in which He named His >eldest son, 'Abdu'l-Baha' to be the Center of His Covenant, the only >authorized Interpretor of His Teachings, and the Perfect Exemplar of >everything He revealed. During His 29 year ministry, 'Abdu'l-Baha' expounded >and interpreted Baha'u'llahs Teachings. Upon His death in 1921, His Will and >Testament was read, and in it He established the institution of the >Guardianship, naming His eldest Grandson (all sons died while prisoners) >Shoghi Effendi to be the first. Shoghi Effendi died in 1957. For a brief >period, the Institution of the Hands of the Cause of God presided over the >affairs of the Baha'i Faith, until 1963, when the Universal House of Justice >was elected. This Institution was called for by Baha'u'llah, and elucidated >further by 'Abdu'l-Baha', and it, along with the National, Regional and >Local Spiritual Assemblies (temporary names), is the divinely ordained >Institution, together with the Guardianship, which ensures the unity and >integrity of this Faith. > >At each crisis point - the death of the Bab, of Baha'u'llah, of >'Abdu'l-Baha', and of Shoghi Effendi, there arose those who rejected the >Covenant, and chose instead to follow their own egos. They are called >Covenant Breakers, and they have existed in all Religions. Covenant Breakers >are the mortal enemies of Religion, for they strive to rend assunder the >unity and purity of it, and sow dissent in place of love. > >Judas. > >Today, the Baha'i Faith is developing the resources necessary for the next >stage of growth. Its institutions are maturing, as are the few millions of >Baha'is who today comprise a tiny fraction of the whole. They are the >leaven. > >If an individual rejects 'Abdu'l-Baha', he/she is rejecting Baha'u'llah. If >Shoghi Effendi is rejected, then so are 'Abdu'l-Baha' and Baha'u'llah. And >so, with the Universal House of Justice. The point of unity for us all. > >Robert A. Little > > >sodarshan@cheerful.com wrote in message <6flkqk$673$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>The baha'is who are the champions of unity on this mother earth are >fighting >>among themselves. The main sect of Orthodox seems to be holding upperhand >in >>their discussions, while the other bahai group seems to be having their >backs >>to the wall. Why are they just quarelling on the issue of 'GUARDIANSHIP' >>Can any one explain? >>Sodarshan >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:24 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 04, 1998 8:25 PM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible The Declaration of Independence (U.S.) contains these famous words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..." end of quote --------- ------ In mathematics, the statement that any number equals itself is called an axiom. An axiom is a self-evident truth. -------- ------- If a truth is self-evident, most people will recognize it, even though proof in the technical sense may be impossible. -------- -------- With that background, I would like to offer the proposal that the Bible is a miraculous book, a message to us from God, and that it speaks a plain truth which all men upon reading it can recognize. Of course you will judge whether my argument has merit. ------------ --------- First, consider the following: The Bible was written over a period of time that spanned thousands of years. It was written through the hands of many men. Its books were written in separate languages, some in Hebrew, some in Greek. Among the most ancient of its physical manuscripts (Isaiah), when unearthed a few years ago, was identical word for word and letter for letter with the most recently published copy before the discovery.-------- -------- How could such a book possibly have any coherence at all? Yet not only does the Bible cohere, it is as if it were written by a single author with a master plan who, from its very first verse had already laid out in advance the ouline, theme, plot, climax and ending. ---- ------ Many readers of the Bible have been struck by the linkage between verses separated by pages and centuries from each other. Old and New Testaments converge repeatedly, each explaining and amplifying the message of the other, a message which in both cases is that God is closely and personally involved in the life of each and every one of his human creatures.------ ------- If a reader fails to immediately understand a particular passage, he has but to pray. The answer may come immediately or later, subtly or profoundly. How often have I pondered a verse for days (or much longer) to no avail, only to suddenly have its meaning revealed to me through the word or action of another person, through an event of nature, or sometimes, through a lightning bolt thought put into my mind by God. ------------ -------- ------- --------- ------- ----- Such miracles have never occurred to me from any other book, from any other source but God. And they happen so often, with such regularity, and sometimes with such divine humor(!) that, as soon as an evil doubt begins to infiltrate my mind, it is dispelled quickly by the overwhelming proof, that self-evident truth, that God has heard my plea for salvation and answered it. --------- -------- To remove any verse from the Bible is to diminish it. To declare any verse of it untrue is as if to attempt to poison it. --------- -------- ------- But century after century the Bible endures. Reader after reader, it triumphs. And one day, perhaps very soon, it will be understood, not merely in part but in whole. For one day assuredly, its author will kindly read it to us aloud, His voice perhaps lowering as He describes the sins of His creatures, their rejection of Him, their eternal loss. But He will rejoice with us also, through it all, for it is the story of His love for us, even while we were yet His enemies. And when at last He arrives at that final verse, His eyes glancing up from the text at us as He closes the covers one final time, He recites to us those beautiful, ending, climactic words, "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all." ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:25 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Tomljenovic Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 1:34 PM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >YU ZIR wrote: >> >> The Declaration of Independence (U.S.) contains these famous words, "We >> hold these truths to be self-evident..." end of quote --------- >> ------ In mathematics, the statement that any number equals itself is >> called an axiom. An axiom is a self-evident truth. -------- >> ------- If a truth is self-evident, most people will recognize it, even >> though proof in the technical sense may be impossible. -------- > >Actually, if you realy want to be exact, there are no axioms in >mathematics. This has been well proven by Godel I believe. So there >are no self-evident truths in math. >They are relative to the human condition. They are OUR axioms, and not >the >real ones. The real ones simply don't exist. > >> -------- With that background, I would like to offer the proposal that >> the Bible is a miraculous book, a message to us from God, and that it >> speaks a plain truth which all men upon reading it can recognize. Of >> course you will judge whether my argument has merit. ------------ >> --------- First, consider the following: The Bible was written over a >> period of time that spanned thousands of years. It was written through >> the hands of many men. Its books were written in separate languages, >> some in Hebrew, some in Greek. Among the most ancient of its physical >> manuscripts (Isaiah), when unearthed a few years ago, was identical word >> for word and letter for letter with the most recently published copy >> before the discovery.-------- >> -------- How could such a book possibly have any coherence at all? Yet >> not only does the Bible cohere, it is as if it were written by a single >> author with a master plan who, from its very first verse had already >> laid out in advance the ouline, theme, plot, climax and ending. ---- > >I think the reason behind this is very simple. Because the people who >are copying it have such a devout belief, that undoubtedly, they will >have enourmous care in copying the words correctly. But if you carry >your argument to the logical extreme, then >we should all use the King James Version. However, most evangelicals >would >refuse because they say that it's translation is incorrect. So how >then do you >account for these descrepincies? Millions of people were using the King >James >Version before modern scholars went back to older manuscripts to make >better >translations. Was God decieving all the people using the KJV? > >> ------ Many readers of the Bible have been struck by the linkage >> between verses separated by pages and centuries from each other. Old >> and New Testaments converge repeatedly, each explaining and amplifying >> the message of the other, a message which in both cases is that God is >> closely and personally involved in the life of each and every one of his >> human creatures.------ > >I find the same case with the Baha'i writings. > >> ------- If a reader fails to immediately understand a particular >> passage, he has but to pray. The answer may come immediately or later, >> subtly or profoundly. How often have I pondered a verse for days (or >> much longer) to no avail, only to suddenly have its meaning revealed to >> me through the word or action of another person, through an event of >> nature, or sometimes, through a lightning bolt thought put into my mind >> by God. ------------ -------- ------- --------- ------- > >Again, I find the same case with Baha'u'llah's verses as well. > >> ----- Such miracles have never occurred to me from any other book, from >> any other source but God. And they happen so often, with such >> regularity, and sometimes with such divine humor(!) that, as soon as an >> evil doubt begins to infiltrate my mind, it is dispelled quickly by the >> overwhelming proof, that self-evident truth, that God has heard my plea >> for salvation and answered it. --------- > >For me it was te exact opposite. I could never relate to the Bible. >But >the words from Baha'u'llahs pen have quickened my soul, and now, I feel >more Chistrian then I was before. I have a profound love for Christ >that >I never had. So you tell me, is this the work of the devil? Would >Satan ever >grant someone the love of Christ? I would say not... > >> -------- To remove any verse from the Bible is to diminish it. To >> declare any verse of it untrue is as if to attempt to poison it. > >So if I disagree with your interpretation, that means that I am a >heretic? >I think you should become a Catholic, because they have the most >legitamate >claims on correct interpretation. Who else can claim authority from >Peter? > >> --------- -------- >> ------- But century after century the Bible endures. Reader after >> reader, it triumphs. And one day, perhaps very soon, it will be >> understood, not merely in part but in whole. For one day assuredly, its >> author will kindly read it to us aloud, His voice perhaps lowering as He >> describes the sins of His creatures, their rejection of Him, their >> eternal loss. But He will rejoice with us also, through it all, for it >> is the story of His love for us, even while we were yet His enemies. >> And when at last He arrives at that final verse, His eyes glancing up >> from the text at us as He closes the covers one final time, He recites >> to us those beautiful, ending, climactic words, "The grace of our Lord >> Jesus Christ be with you all." > >Maybe He came already? Does God have the right to do whatever He >wishes, or are >you going to set limits on what the Almighty's degree. Think about it. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:26 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Posting a public list of covenant breakers' names & addresses fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <6g8lk4$3pp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6g80eg$6kp@news3.newsguy.com>, >someone (unclear who, too many names) wrote: > >> >I don't know what all the fuss is about - NO ONE IS CONSIDERED A COVENANT >> >BREAKER UNLESS THEY HAVE BEEN SO NAMED BY THE UNIVERSAL HOUSE OF JUSTICE >> >(AND THEN BAHAIS ARE INSTRUCTED TO SHUN THEM). HOW CAN WE SHUN THEM IF WE >> >DON'T KNOW WHO THEY ARE????? > >Shun them, but you are not forbidden to read what they write--Shoghi and the >UHJ have stated that. > >> >APPARENTLY YOU KNOW OF SOME PEOPLE IN GROUPS WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES CB'S - > >> > BAHA'IS HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY TO SHUN SELF-DECLARED GROUPS OF WHICH YOU >> >TALK AS FAR AS I KNOW. >> > > >This is a ridiculous statement. What you have is various groups who have >interpreted the Will and Testament of Abdul'Baha differently, and have >declared that the UHJ set up by the Hands is in violation of the W&T and of >the instructions left by Shoghi for the steps necessary to set up the UHJ. >From their point of view, it is the UHJ and the Hands who have violated the >Covenant, and their followers are Covenant breakers. They're not going >around declaring themselves to be Covenant breakers, that is simply silly. > >> >IF POSTING CB'S NAMES ON THIS BAHAI NEWSGROUP IS VIOLATING THEIR RIGHTS >> >THEN CLEARLY WE SHOULD NOT DO THAT. > >When you blacklist people you violate their civil rights. There are people >out there who are considered covenant breakers by extension--even though they >have little or nothing to do with the Faith, they are treated as Covenant >breakers because they are related to someone who is. Imagine if someone has >a really unusual name, and is a Covenant breaker. A cousin or grandchild of >his would be treated as one too if that person's name were publicly posted. >That would really help the Faith, wouldn't it, to treat innocent people like >they are enemies. Good PR. > >My suggestion is this: You run across an idea which you think is in >violation of the teachings of the Faith. Read what Baha'u'llah, Abdul'Baha, >and Shoghi have written --do this yourself (see with your own eyes, not the >eyes of others), and then post what you have found. If the poster continues >to submit posts which are in blatant error, ignore him or her. I don't read >many posts because when I see the poster's name I know that they will not be >related to topics I want to read, or I find their viewpoints offensive. > >When you capitalize everything on a post, it is considered shouting, not >emphasis. > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:27 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Jesus' Ethereal Resurrection fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 8:43 PM Subject: Re: Jesus' Ethereal Resurrection >In article <6g6jmp$25c$1@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, > YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: >> >> The Gospel messages and the epistles are not ambiguous on the matter of >> Christ's resurrection. They neither waver nor apologize in stating the >> clear, unequivocal truth, Christ's body was placed dead into a grave. >> It lay dead until the third day, when it was raised in glory and triumph >> in its final and eternal victory over sin and death. The resurrection >> is the central truth of Christianity. To attempt to read into the >> Gospels anything other than what they plainly say is to deny the >> physical, literal resurrection of Christ, the same resurrection by which >> every follower who dies will be taken into God's eternal kingdom. The >> Bible tells the truth, all the truth we can know, and nothing but the >> truth. It is not man's book; it is God's book. > > The actual teaching of 'Abdu'l-Baha was not to deny the historacity of the >Resurrection of Jesus, but only that is was physical/material. In Mystical >Islam (and Shaykhism) there is a doctrine of the heavenly body (also called >subtle/ethereal body). Shaykh Ahmad taught that we all have a spirit, a soul >(which is our subtle body) and a body (i.e. physical body). He taught that the >physical body returns to dust, but that the subtle body continues on. Was >Jesus raised in His physical body; the same body that was crucified? Well, >Paul said we are raised 'spiritual' bodies; not natural bodies. A spiritual >body has the ability to change form, walk through walls, etc. A physical body >does not. The tomb was certainly empty; that is an historical fact testified >to in all the gospels. I can understand your frustation with Baha'is, many of >whom cling to the mistaken notion that the resurrection of Jesus was "purely" >metaphorical. 'Abdu'l-Baha was saying no such thing; only that it was >spiritual and not material/physical. >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:28 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Why Must The World Become One? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6gc62r$2ol$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Roger, > I know that the Mission of Baha'u'llah was to bring Unity, but WHY? Why does >the world need to become one? This is my question. >Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:28 AM Subject: Re: Why Must The World Become One? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6gc62r$2ol$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Roger, > I know that the Mission of Baha'u'llah was to bring Unity, but WHY? Why does >the world need to become one? This is my question. >Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:29 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Why Unity of Mankind? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6g9fkm$8q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > I've been told that the purpose of Baha'u'llah was to bring the "Unity of >Mankind?" Why? So, Baha'u'llah came to bring World Peace? It that all He is >for? >Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Why Unity of Mankind? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6g9fkm$8q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > I've been told that the purpose of Baha'u'llah was to bring the "Unity of >Mankind?" Why? So, Baha'u'llah came to bring World Peace? It that all He is >for? >Darrick Evenson > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:30 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Why Unity of Mankind? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) Roger Reini wrote in message <3529b989.283905676@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 21:45:42 -0600, darricke@hotmail.com wrote: > >> I've been told that the purpose of Baha'u'llah was to bring the "Unity of >>Mankind?" Why? So, Baha'u'llah came to bring World Peace? It that all He is >>for? > >The Manifestations come for several reasons -- to restore us to the >path to God, to remind us of the eternal spiritual teachings, etc. > >At the same time, there are differences in the missions of the >Manifestations. They seem to emphasize certain teachings over others. >For instance, IMHO, the ministry of Jesus focused on personal conduct >and individual spirituality -- salvation, if you will. Baha'u'llah's >ministry focuses mainly on unity -- the unity of religion, of >humanity, etc. Each previous dispensation provides another block of >the foundation which subsequent dispensations are built upon. Thus, >before Christ could appear, Moses had to appear. Before Baha'u'llah >appeared, the world needed the teachings of Moses, Christ, Muhammad, >etc. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Why Unity of Mankind? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) Roger Reini wrote in message <3529b989.283905676@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 21:45:42 -0600, darricke@hotmail.com wrote: > >> I've been told that the purpose of Baha'u'llah was to bring the "Unity of >>Mankind?" Why? So, Baha'u'llah came to bring World Peace? It that all He is >>for? > >The Manifestations come for several reasons -- to restore us to the >path to God, to remind us of the eternal spiritual teachings, etc. > >At the same time, there are differences in the missions of the >Manifestations. They seem to emphasize certain teachings over others. >For instance, IMHO, the ministry of Jesus focused on personal conduct >and individual spirituality -- salvation, if you will. Baha'u'llah's >ministry focuses mainly on unity -- the unity of religion, of >humanity, etc. Each previous dispensation provides another block of >the foundation which subsequent dispensations are built upon. Thus, >before Christ could appear, Moses had to appear. Before Baha'u'llah >appeared, the world needed the teachings of Moses, Christ, Muhammad, >etc. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:39 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB -----Original Message----- From: John Walker To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:35 AM Subject: Re: Posting Bahai-faith messages on SRB >Dear Frederick > >I thought that an unmoderated list would accept material from covenant >breakers. Accept is perhaps the wrong word. Rather, how can an unmoderated list reject them? The view has been expressed by others that we are big enough and >grown up enough now to handle it. If it remains true that CB material is >rejected, we are open to the charge by non- Baha'is, and we saw it only >recently, that Baha'i hierarchies are censoring anything but 'the party >line'. At least, in my opinion, the BCCA and "moderators" at srb.... I have always found similarity between CB material and material from >non-Baha'is with an axe to grind against the faith. > >John Walker > -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:41 AM Subject: Poverty and the American Baha'i fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:40 AM Subject: Poverty and the American Baha'i >I have been giving some thought to the concept of materialism and acquisition >of wealth, comparing the statements made by Baha'u'llah as to the special >blessings visited upon the poor, with the manner in which we as Baha'is >approach material gain the United States. Just some thoughts, mind you. >About a year ago I remember reading in the one of the Baha'i newsgroups a >letter by a south African Baha'i, a professor at one of the universities down >there. He was evidently quite well off and evidently of caucasian descent, >for he had no trouble traveling around the country or leaving it for foreign >lands if he so wished; furthermore, he had accumulated enough "lucra" to buy >himself a BMW , which he stated he was comfortable driving around that >country--even though that can be described as an "ostantacious" car >(conspicuous consumerism at its finest). >I guess what bothered me the most about the letter was the thought of someone >feeling fine about doing that in a country where 9/10 of the people are living >in the direst poverty, barely able to put food in their mouths, most with no >clean water, no decent housing, no education and no prospects of acquiring any >of these within the near future. >My question, then is this: at what point do we, as Baha'is, look at our own >lifestyles critically, and renounce material goods because of--let's say, >perhaps a sense of brotherhood with those who are suffering? I am not trying >to make a case for asceticism, but of taking great care not to live opulently >while we are surrounded by dire need...perhaps even giving up alot of "things" >so that we can use that money to elevate the poor out of their misery? >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: fw Self Generated Noise (?) fw & comments -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Josh6396 To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:41 AM Subject: Self Generated Noise (?) >Dear all, > >A previous message stated; > >>are seeking to know just about the opposite >>of what the Baha'i Faith stands for... So >>shouldn't they form their own newsgroup and >>seek out the answers they want.... So time >>is not taken up with redundant questioning? > >I agree, this is getting to be just like 'alt.religion.bahai'. More chat >on the 'terms' of chatting than any actual content. Some of you are >opposed to your mailboxes filling up with "covenant-breaker" content, >well how about message after message of hashing out the details? As far as I know, I have not forwarded a single message from someone who has been declared a covenant breaker.... There is >more here ABOUT how this list should be run than the subject itself, the >Baha'i faith! We should rename these lists >'alt.religion.bahai.terms.of.chat' and >'bahai-faith-boring-details@coollist.com'. As a new list, I believe it has been necessary and is justifiable to poll the new members about how to proceed. Sorry if there's been too much of that for some of you. All the bugs are yet to be worked out in my opinion. Forwarding of messages between bahai-faith and alt.religion.bahai remains a real problem and is awkward in the extreme manually. I'd appreciate suggestions or help on this especially. > >If I was chairing this meeting I'd be slamming the gavel and demanding a >vote by now. Discussion is closed and the consensus appears to be that >1.) there is no list of covenant-breakers to post anyway so that's a dead >issue 2.) most people aren't that concerned anyway and 3.) you've got a >DELETE button, use it as needed to your own taste just like you use your >television remote. I agree to all of the above. Others? Oops! That would be more discussion of terms! > >End of subject. I sympathize but doubt such matters won't inevitably rearise from time to time. I'm not in control and don't want to be. No one is. Hence, I believe we'll have to discuss things together as needed occasionally. > >Quite frankly I've been deleting these 'details' messages left and right >and they feel more like 'spam' than any supposed 'covenant-breaker' >statement, which is more usually more interesting because it sets up a >challenge of reason, research and debate. I believe Shoghi Effendi said >we should try to educate covenant-breakers first anyway, if they don't >come around then leave them to themselves. This is the OPEN FORUM for >doing so, so let's get on with it and open the floor to another subject. >PLEASE. There are a number of other threads open at the moment.... > >Josh > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:49 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Self Generated Noise (?) -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: fw Self Generated Noise (?) > >fw & comments >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > >-----Original Message----- >From: Josh6396 >To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 7:41 AM >Subject: Self Generated Noise (?) > > >>Dear all, >> >>A previous message stated; >> >>>are seeking to know just about the opposite >>>of what the Baha'i Faith stands for... So >>>shouldn't they form their own newsgroup and >>>seek out the answers they want.... So time >>>is not taken up with redundant questioning? >> >>I agree, this is getting to be just like 'alt.religion.bahai'. More chat >>on the 'terms' of chatting than any actual content. Some of you are >>opposed to your mailboxes filling up with "covenant-breaker" content, >>well how about message after message of hashing out the details? > >As far as I know, I have not forwarded a single message from someone >who has been declared a covenant breaker.... > >There is >>more here ABOUT how this list should be run than the subject itself, the >>Baha'i faith! We should rename these lists >>'alt.religion.bahai.terms.of.chat' and >>'bahai-faith-boring-details@coollist.com'. > >As a new list, I believe it has been necessary and is justifiable to poll >the new members about how to proceed. Sorry if there's been too >much of that for some of you. All the bugs are yet to be worked out >in my opinion. Forwarding of messages between bahai-faith and >alt.religion.bahai remains a real problem and is awkward in the >extreme manually. I'd appreciate suggestions or help on this >especially. > >> >>If I was chairing this meeting I'd be slamming the gavel and demanding a >>vote by now. Discussion is closed and the consensus appears to be that >>1.) there is no list of covenant-breakers to post anyway so that's a dead >>issue 2.) most people aren't that concerned anyway and 3.) you've got a >>DELETE button, use it as needed to your own taste just like you use your >>television remote. > >I agree to all of the above. Others? Oops! That would be more >discussion of terms! > >> >>End of subject. > >I sympathize but doubt such matters won't inevitably rearise from >time to time. I'm not in control and don't want to be. No one is. Hence, >I believe we'll have to discuss things together as needed >occasionally. > >> >>Quite frankly I've been deleting these 'details' messages left and right >>and they feel more like 'spam' than any supposed 'covenant-breaker' >>statement, which is more usually more interesting because it sets up a >>challenge of reason, research and debate. I believe Shoghi Effendi said >>we should try to educate covenant-breakers first anyway, if they don't >>come around then leave them to themselves. This is the OPEN FORUM for >>doing so, so let's get on with it and open the floor to another subject. >>PLEASE. > >There are a number of other threads open at the moment.... > >> >>Josh >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? >> >> --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm >> --------------------------------------------------------- > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 9:00 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Re: Star's Reposting messages to SRB From: Suzanne Gerstner To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, April 05, 1998 4:41 PM Subject: Re: Star's Reposting messages to SRB >Dear Frederick, > >> >Could you be so kind as to explain why you chose to discuss >> >a thread that originated here on SRB? This is an unmoderated >> >forum. People are free to respond as they wish here. SRB is, >> >in my opinion, more than moderated, rather highly censored. >> >Honest, candid discussion is not permitted there. > >What's interesting is that I've had the exact opposite experience. I've never had >a letter rejected by SRB, but I have often had letters I've sent to ARB disappear. > Strange that the one is moderated, and it is, for me at least, a guaranteed place >for my posting to appear, and the other, which is ostensibly unmoderated and >uncensored, I never see my posts. It baffles me. I've basically given up on ARB >for that reason. Your problem may be related to the lower accessibility to the alt.* hierarchy. There is definitely no one with the ability to censor out messages on alt.religion.bahai. You might try accessing messages via talk.religion.bahai since many if not most people crosspost to both so that people with only the Big 8 hierarchies can join in or following along. The problem too might lie with your ISP. You might contact the system administrator to see if they have any ideas. > >I've seen lots of controversial things on SRB, by the way. I've seen things that >I kind of *wish* had been censored out, because I don't think they reflect well on >the Faith. Alas. Many, many people have had the opposite experience and opinion of SRB.... > >Kind regards, > >Suzanne Gerstner >The Hague, The Netherlands > >"Anyone who imagines that all fruits ripen at the same >time as the strawberries knows nothing about grapes." > Paracelsus > -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:34 PM Subject: Fw: Babi atrocities fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:33 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Babi atrocities >My personal reaction to this particular set of quotes is that there is a vast >misunderstanding of the Babi history and of His mission , which was >specifically one of upheaval and radical departure, a sort of "shock >treatement," so to speak. That the Babi followers went on rampages only >testifies as to their own set of priorities; they distorted His teachings to >fit their own agendas and used their misunderstandings as excuses for behavior >which was inexcusable. This is happening even today with the Baha'is--except >that evidently, murder by sword is no longer accepted, so we have slaughter by >defamation. >The Bab WAS a distinct and separate Manifestation--this is explained quite >clearly by both Baha'u'llah and Shoghi Effendi. His role was distinct and >separate from Baha'u'llah's. That He stated He was the Gate to Baha'u'llah's >mission meant that He was the first in a series (whether of two or three >Revelations depends on personal interpretations of the teachings) and was, in >a sense, preparing the way for a complete revolution in thought, the birth of >a new humanity. >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:35 PM Subject: Fw: Babi atrocities fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ----Original Message----- From: rmsolem@mke.ab.com To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:34 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Babi atrocities >Nancy wrote; > >>My personal reaction to this particular set of quotes is that there is a vast >>misunderstanding of the Babi history and of His mission , which was >>specifically one of upheaval and radical departure, a sort of "shock >>treatement," so to speak. That the Babi followers went on rampages only >>testifies as to their own set of priorities; they distorted His teachings to >>fit their own agendas and used their misunderstandings as excuses for >>behavior which was inexcusable. > >It seems as though the misunderstanding of the Babis continues to this >day. The Babs revelation came in a time and place where things were very >dark and corrupt. His message was spread widely but his actual teachings >were difficult to get ahold of at the time. > >Remember, besides being in a repressive Islamic environment there were no >printing presses churning out his works en masse. An early prominent >member of the faith -- he wrote 'The Baha'i Proofs' at 'Abdu'l-Bahas >request -- at the time is quoted as saying to members of the government >something to the effect "If you let the Babis practice their religion as >they choose they'll become educated and they'll understand that its >tentents forbid such behaviour. Then you'll have the best and most law >abiding citizens in the society. It is your forbidding of the practice of >the Babi faith that is the cause of your problem." > >It wasn't that they were "distorting" His teachings or that they had any >of their own 'agendas'. The early believers just didn't know the >teachings and laws in detail because the government was preventing them >from studying them and they were hard to find. They had heard his proofs >and mission and accepted Him but couldn't learn the faith and put it into >action. > >The problem of getting the teachings in the hands of believers has long >been a problem in the faith. I've seen hand written Baha'i compilations >copied from believer to believer from the early part of this century here >in the states because there was a lack of printed and translated >material. Now that we have the information for the most part we face the >next two problems. Reading and undestanding it and then putting it into >action. > >>This is happening even today with the Baha'is--except >>that evidently, murder by sword is no longer accepted, so we have >>slaughter by defamation. >History repeats itself. Read the writings, learn your faith. > >RMSolem > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:36 PM Subject: Fw: Bahai Sect fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Bahai Sect >Robert Little's discussion of the Baha'i faith has many good points. If I >have any difficulty with it at all--and Lord knows I hate wandering into this >discussion--it's his broadening of the term Covenant Breaker into someone who >disagrees with the manner in which the UHJ was established. There is no >provision in the Writings whatsoever stating that this definition even >remotely exists. The Will and Testament speaks of anyone rejecting the >Guardian--it says nothing about rejecting the UHJ. Furthermore, Shoghi >Effendi was pretty specific in his statements that NO ONE, except for himself >and the Master, had the authority to declare anyone a violator. That's pretty >clear, and it is impossible to interpret in any other manner. I see this as >indicating he was aware of our fallacies, as human beings, our paranoias, and >our tendency to become control freaks. :) >I am not a member of any of the offspring groups, so this is not an argument >defending any particular position. It is simply the reminder that truth is >truth, and invention is invention, and many times the two do not mix very >well. >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:37 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai historical revisionism fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 4:18 PM Subject: Re: Bahai historical revisionism >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >>Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, >> >>Despite this baloney propaganda, it is a known fact that the babis where not >>"innocent" people who were simply of a different belief and so were >>persecurted. The bab started a violent revolution and his teachings and his >>aims were the violent overthrow of the government of Iran. > >Hasan M. Balyuzi, in his book, _The Bab: The Herald of the Day of Days_ >(Oxford, G. Ronald, 1973) as I recall it describes an incident where the >governor of a province offers to give troops to the Bab to march on >Teheran, but the Bab refused. Perhaps someone can help with the >specific reference? > >>To read more about this you can refer to the original teachings of the bayan >>(the bab's major book and which the bahai propagandists don't want you to >>see). > >Who are "Baha'i propagandists"? It is available in an early French >translation, but I imagine a lot of work would be needed to get a worthy >translation in English (or French or any language), judging by the >effort that had to go into the Kitab-i-Aqdas. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:39 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Why Must The World Become One? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 10:55 AM Subject: Re: Why Must The World Become One? >On Mon, 06 Apr 1998 22:20:59 -0600, darricke@hotmail.com wrote: > >>Dear Roger, >> I know that the Mission of Baha'u'llah was to bring Unity, but WHY? Why does >>the world need to become one? This is my question. >>Darrick Evenson > >From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi in 1932: > >"We belong to an organic unit and when one part of the organism >suffers all the rest of the body will feel its consequence. This is >in fact the reason why Baha'u'llah calls our attention to the unity of >mankind. " >(Multiple Authors: Lights of Guidance, page 133) > >When one looks at the previous revelations, one can see an >ever-increasing amount of unity. With Moses, we had unity at a tribal >level; with Christ, at a city or city-state level; with Muhammad, at a >national level; and with Baha'u'llah, at a planetary level. It's a >very natural progression, IMHO. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 3:39 PM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Why Unity of Mankind? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 1:45 PM Subject: Why Unity of Mankind? > >The world is ONE, we only have to admit this fact. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:02 AM Subject: Fw: Bahai historical revisionism fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:01 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Bahai historical revisionism >Both the Persian and the Arabic Bayans are available upon request from the >Baha'i Archives; the ALM Nicolas translation is in rather archaic french but >very comprehensible; the Persian Bayan is currently being translated by some >Baha'i academics and is available piece by piece, as completed, on the >internet. There is no conspiracy to keep it from anyone who has the desire to >read it. >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:05 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 10:03 AM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >On Tue, 7 Apr 1998 20:58:58 -0400, YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: > >>Replying to Steve Tomljenovic: ----- >> ----- Regarding the analogy I used (mathematical axioms) to illustrate >>the self-evident truth of the Bible, I never knew that anyone had >>established that there are no math axioms. Wow. Even so, I don't know >>how anyone can deny that the equation 1=1 is not a self-evident truth >>that cannot be otherwise proved. Which was what I intended to use as an >>analogy. But all analogies fall short. They're just a jumping-off >>point. >>------ Secondly, if I gave the impression that I was trying to undermine >>your experience with scripture, I was careless with my words. I'm >>sorry. ---- >> ----- When I say that changing (altering, re-wording) a passage of >>scripture is as if to poison it, that is not a claim that "my" >>interpretation is somewhow better than yours. (It is not.) It is >>instead a warning that we should stay as close as we can to what the >>scripture actually says, rather than go wandering from it. This >>practice is often referred to (reviled is another word) as Biblical >>literalism. Rather than being a strait-jacket, it is a liberation from >>the deceptions of our egos. It is, if I may paraphrase an expression >>associated with Islam, a submission to the word of God. ------- >> ----- Just about an hour or so ago I e-mailed someone an example or two >>of Biblical passages which, taken literally, resulted in ridicule, >>disbelief, even scorn. Deuteronomy 30:1-5 promises the restoration of >>the nation of Israel, even after it is scattered all over the world. >>The prophecy was wildly interpreted as symbolizing the Christian church, >>etc (e-t-c: the three most dangerous letters in the alphabet) until God >>fulfilled the prophecy literally. Likewise many disciples of Jesus >>turned away from Him (John 6:66) because of "hard teachings." Even now >>those teachings are very hard. ------- >> -------- While I personally believe the Baha'i scriptures to be false, > >Have you ever read the Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah? Here are the >first twelve: > >HE IS THE GLORY OF GLORIES > This is that which hath descended from the realm of glory, >uttered by the tongue of power and might, and revealed unto the >Prophets of old. We have taken the inner essence thereof and clothed >it in the garment of brevity, as a token of grace unto the righteous, >that they may stand faithful unto the Covenant of God, may fulfill in >their lives His trust, and in the realm of spirit obtain the gem of >Divine virtue. > > 1. O SON OF SPIRIT! My first counsel is this: Possess a pure, >kindly and radiant heart, that thine may be a sovereignty ancient, >imperishable and everlasting. > > 2. O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is >Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect it >not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with thine >own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of thine >own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder >this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My >gift to thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before >thine eyes. > >3. O SON OF MAN! Veiled in My immemorial being and in the ancient >eternity of My essence, I knew My love for thee; therefore I created >thee, have engraved on thee Mine image and revealed to thee My beauty. > > >4. O SON OF MAN! I loved thy creation, hence I created thee. >Wherefore, do thou love Me, that I may name thy name and fill thy soul >with the spirit of life. > >5. O SON OF BEING! Love Me, that I may love thee. If thou lovest Me >not, My love can in no wise reach thee. Know this, O servant. > >6. O SON OF BEING! Thy Paradise is My love; thy heavenly home, >reunion with Me. Enter therein and tarry not. This is that which >hath been destined for thee in Our kingdom above and Our exalted >Dominion. > >7. O SON OF MAN! If thou lovest Me, turn away from thyself; and if >thou seekest My pleasure, regard not thine own; that thou mayest die >in Me and I may eternally live in thee. > >8. O SON OF SPIRIT! There is no peace for thee save by renouncing >thyself and turning unto Me; for it behooveth thee to glory in My >name, not in thine own; to put thy trust in Me and not in thyself, >since I desire to be loved alone and above all that is. > >9. O SON OF BEING! My love is My stronghold; he that entereth therein >is safe and secure, and he that turneth away shall surely stray and >perish. > >10. O SON OF UTTERANCE! Thou art My stronghold; enter therein that >thou mayest abide in safety. My love is in thee, know it, that thou >mayest find Me near unto thee. > >11. O SON OF BEING! Thou art My lamp and My light is in thee. Get >thou from it thy radiance and seek none other than Me. For I have >created thee rich and have bountifully shed My favor upon thee. > >12. O SON OF BEING! With the hands of power I made thee and with the >fingers of strength I created thee; and within thee have I placed the >essence of My light. Be thou content with it and seek naught else, for >My work is perfect and My command is binding. Question it not, nor >have a doubt thereof. >(Baha'u'llah: Arabic Hidden Words, pages 1-12) > >When I read these verses, I hear the same voice that spoke to Moses >via the Burning Bush -- the same voice of the Sermon on the Mount -- >the Voice of God. > >>what is more important is that you exercise your own judgment about that >>with prayer to God. After all, our interpretation of scripture is >>wrong, God's interpretation is right. ------- >> ------ All I can offer is my own testimony to the miracles Jesus Christ >>has and does perform(ed) in my life, miracles both inward and outward, >>both subtle and spectacular. But one man's testimony by itself is not >>sufficient, says the Bible.----- >> ----- I'm rambling now, so I'll sign off. I'll try to post some more >>in praise of the Bible later. Steve, I'm glad to hear you love Jesus, >>as I'm sure you rejoice for me in Him. He loves us even more, and what >>a friend He is! > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:06 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Tomljenovic Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 7:34 PM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >YU ZIR: > >I was just watching this series on Frontline the other night about the >early christians. It was truely fascinating to see how much the >development >of chistianity was a very organic process, full of human shortcomings. >Of >course, this does not deny the divinity of Christ in any way, >but reveals an interesting fact about how God works. It is not a cut and >dry process like many christians like to claim, but full of >contradicitions >and imperfections. There were hundreds of Gospels, not simply the four >that have come to us in the modern day in the official Bible. And they >were full >of contradictions. Even the four Gospels of the Bible have varying >accounts of >things. Now, if you look at how these documents evolved, it would be >very >difficult to say that they were perfect historical records. Of course, >this >does not mean that the accounts they give are incorrect, or that they do >not >have spiritual significance, but to claim they are the inerrent Word of >God would >be a bit of a stretch. Of course, this flies in the face of evangelical >reasoning, whose argument is based on the Bible being a perfect >document. >However, it would seem these arguments go against alot of rational >research. > >And again, this absolutely does not diminish Jesus' station. Actually, >I think it >enhances it. The real proof of Christianity is not the Bible, but the >fact >that there are about a billion believers today. What power but God's >alone can >transform a small group followers, confused and dejected after Christ's >death, >into a force that conquered the Roman Empire, and finally, spread to >every >corner of the earth. Like Jesus said, by their fruits you shall know >them. >What marvelous fruits has Christ's faith bore! And when I look at the >life >of Baha'u'llah, I cannot deny that He is indeed who He claims to be, the >return >of Christ and God's Manifestation. Now, we can have a hair-splitting >debate of >the wording of phrases whose literal meaning is in question, or we can >simply >look at the fruits which are undeniable proofs. > >So, I recognize that Jesus has worked miracles in your life because I >believe in Christ. But, I wish you would recognize my testament, my >witness to the Truth of Baha'u'llah's mission and teachings. > >thank you, > >steve > >> >> Replying to Steve Tomljenovic: ----- >> ----- Regarding the analogy I used (mathematical axioms) to illustrate >> the self-evident truth of the Bible, I never knew that anyone had >> established that there are no math axioms. Wow. Even so, I don't know >> how anyone can deny that the equation 1=1 is not a self-evident truth >> that cannot be otherwise proved. Which was what I intended to use as an >> analogy. But all analogies fall short. They're just a jumping-off >> point. >> ------ Secondly, if I gave the impression that I was trying to undermine >> your experience with scripture, I was careless with my words. I'm >> sorry. ---- >> ----- When I say that changing (altering, re-wording) a passage of >> scripture is as if to poison it, that is not a claim that "my" >> interpretation is somewhow better than yours. (It is not.) It is >> instead a warning that we should stay as close as we can to what the >> scripture actually says, rather than go wandering from it. This >> practice is often referred to (reviled is another word) as Biblical >> literalism. Rather than being a strait-jacket, it is a liberation from >> the deceptions of our egos. It is, if I may paraphrase an expression >> associated with Islam, a submission to the word of God. ------- >> ----- Just about an hour or so ago I e-mailed someone an example or two >> of Biblical passages which, taken literally, resulted in ridicule, >> disbelief, even scorn. Deuteronomy 30:1-5 promises the restoration of >> the nation of Israel, even after it is scattered all over the world. >> The prophecy was wildly interpreted as symbolizing the Christian church, >> etc (e-t-c: the three most dangerous letters in the alphabet) until God >> fulfilled the prophecy literally. Likewise many disciples of Jesus >> turned away from Him (John 6:66) because of "hard teachings." Even now >> those teachings are very hard. ------- >> -------- While I personally believe the Baha'i scriptures to be false, >> what is more important is that you exercise your own judgment about that >> with prayer to God. After all, our interpretation of scripture is >> wrong, God's interpretation is right. ------- >> ------ All I can offer is my own testimony to the miracles Jesus Christ >> has and does perform(ed) in my life, miracles both inward and outward, >> both subtle and spectacular. But one man's testimony by itself is not >> sufficient, says the Bible.----- >> ----- I'm rambling now, so I'll sign off. I'll try to post some more >> in praise of the Bible later. Steve, I'm glad to hear you love Jesus, >> as I'm sure you rejoice for me in Him. He loves us even more, and what >> a friend He is! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:07 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Re(2): Why Must The World Become One? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 5:14 PM Subject: Re(2): Why Must The World Become One? >Mel Roman wrote: >>I have wondered the same thing. I certainly appreciate the value of >>compassion, truth, and justice, but why is unity of the human family so >>important. Is it because unity encompasses these aforementioned virtues? > >Perhaps, and perhaps unity is a co-requisite of the others being >realized. For me, the answer is summed up in the following passage: >"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable >unless and until its unity is firmly established." >Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, p. 286; >https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/GWB/GWB-131.html#Page_286 > >Look at the problems of division (racism, nationalism, etc.) on one >hand, and on the other the diverse economic, environmental, etc. >problems that require close and long-term cooperation (& trust to >make the cooperation work) on the other. Can we even survive without >unity in this day, let alone hope for a better future? > >>Roger also mentioned that Jesus promoted unity on a city or city-state >>level. While I recognize the promotion of unity at higher levels from Moses >>to Muhammed, I don't see Jesus' role as a link in this evolution of the >>unity theme. I can't think of any biblical references that support this. >>Is this supported by some other source (perhaps the Qu'ran)? > >I'd be interested in seeing the sources on this too. From the >historical record, I think that cities took a different path of >development in the period after Jesus Christ, with more becoming more >like permanent communities rather than usually being agglomerations >associated with empires/dynasties and/or trading routes. (But an urban >historian could perhaps make mincemeat of this hypothesis.) > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 1998 8:08 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Why Must The World Become One? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Wednesday, April 08, 1998 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Why Must The World Become One? >darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >>Dear Roger, >> I know that the Mission of Baha'u'llah was to bring Unity, but WHY? Why does >>the world need to become one? This is my question. > >Darrick, Permit me to I offer couple of thoughts in addition to what >Roger has already posted in reply to your question. > >You ask "Why does the world need to become one?" > >1) Because it already is one, and 2) because it is God's plan. > >1) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens." >(Baha'u'llah, Lawh-i-Maqsud, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 167; >https://SunSITE.UNC.Edu/Bahai/Texts/English/TB/TB-10.html#Page_167 ) >Even if one does not accept this revealed word of God (as we Baha'is >believe it to be), then look at the reality of the world today. It is >a commonplace now that environmental and economic forces know no >borders. In both, the world behaves as a single system, albeit >naturally a complex one with sub-systems & local dynamics, and >interactions among them that are not fully understood. Electronic >media such as the one we are communicating on now underscores the >fundamental oneness of the planet and global society. Even migrations >of peoples all around the globe and the response of people in some areas >to problems far from their local communities testifies to this >undeniable reality. Divine prescriptions for dealing with this >unprecedented reality, as we believe were revealed through Baha'u'llah, >came over a century ago. > >2) "... Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in >heaven." (from the Lord's Prayer). As I understand it, this is telling >us that the world will become one "Kingdom" (the Millenium). Human >efforts alone to build this kingdom would seem to be doomed to a variety >of pitfalls; yet as I understand it, Baha'i teachings are that the >promisd Kingdom will not be a magical bestowal. Only be putting into >practice the faith of God, IMHO, can we hope to have the peace, justice, >and unity necessary to bring the Kingdom into reality (timeless truths >taught by all the Messengers of God, as well as specific teachings of >the One Who we believe to be the most recent among Them, Baha'u'llah). > >It is interesting that the prophecied arrival of the Kingdom of God >should come at the time in history when the organic evolution of human >society across the globe has reached the point when only a solution >recognizing the fundamental oneness of humankind and the planet we share >can hope to deal with the problems and potentials we face. > >Hope this helps answer your question.... > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:12 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: ??? I've been busy and apparently no one else has posted anything. That's all.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:11 AM Subject: ??? >I haven't received any posts in the past 3 days. Has this listserv died or is >AOL to blame?? >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? > > --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:14 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: ??? So why don't you post something? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: Fw: ??? >Hi Nancy >I haven't received any either. >Star* > >---------- >> From: LaAeterna >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> Subject: ??? >> Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 11:03 PM >> >> I haven't received any posts in the past 3 days. Has this listserv died >or is >> AOL to blame?? >> Nancy >> >> -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- >> 200,000 exposures for $450? Where? >> >> --> Coollist - https://www.coollist.com/advertise.htm >> --------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:16 AM To: bn872@freenet.carleton.ca Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com Glad to hear you're all right. Info again for subscription is below. I'm also working on a web site I hope to have up in a month or two on religious freedom, etc., and hope that will help the next vote in August. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: McKenny Michael To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 7:14 PM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com > >Greetings. > If you are well, it is well. > Forgive the haste of this message. > My computer died (how some people would have cheered this a year >or two ago) and briefly I use another clearing old e-mail. > I wish you very well in all your endeavours. > When I come back on line I'll try to say more. > Very Best Wishes, > Michael > >> >>Michael, >> >>I hope all is well with you. And your wife too. I thank her for >>mentioning some months ago coollist.com. I've created a >>mailing list there recently and hope it might help make >>alt.religion.bahai more accessible for many in preparation >>for the 3rd interest poll in August.... >> >>Best wishes, >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >>(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >>send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) >> >> >> > > >-- >"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard." > (Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:24 AM To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Subject: Re: Fw: ??? I've been unhappy with coollist.com primarily because it can take me five to ten minutes to subscribe or unsubscribe someone from it manually if they don't have web access themselves. Very tedious and labor intensive. I believe though it's always been up and running since I started in early March or whenever. My IE4 Explorer has some kind of bug in it at the moment that won't let me connect. I'll look at makelist.com in a few days. I'm not opposed to moving the list if it's a better site and everyone or most people agree. Thanks a lot for the suggestion. I appreciate it. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:19 AM Subject: Re: Fw: ??? >Cool List is not a very reliable service. The entire network >was >down for almost a full year. It does seem to have gotten >better, >but .... Anyway, personally, I would recommending moving this >list to: > >https://www.makelist.com/ > >It is similar to Cool List in that it is free. However, it has >no advertising on messages, and it is possible to subscribe >oneself by sending an email to the listserver. In other words, >it is not necessary to go to the web site. > >Warmly, Mark Foster > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:26 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 10:03 AM Subject: Re: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast >On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 20:13:36 -0400, YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: > >>One thing the Bible emphatically warns us about is false prophets. >>These warnings are scattered throughout the New Testament. But in the >>final book of the Bible, the Revelation, that warning reaches its most >>urgent level. There, we are confronted with the ultimate false prophet, >>Satan himself, the impostor and deceiver, claiming to be God. ----- >> ------ While I seem to recall some mention of false prophets in Baha'i >>literature, and also some references to Revelation, I have yet to see >>any Baha'i explain (as opposed to explaining away) those passages which >>most clearly describe the methods and goals of the anti-Christ. I >>invite such review. --------- > >In the book SOME ANSWERED QUESTIONS, 'Abdu'l-Baha comments on the 11th >and 12th chapters of Revelation. The commentaries are too long to >post here in this message; I may be able to post them later. > >In brief, He explains that the events described in these chapters have >been fulfilled by events in Islamic history. For instance, the Beast >of Rev. 12 is a reference to the Umayyad dynasty of caliphs, who >usurped the spiritual leadership of Islam from the rightful owners, >the Imams. > >"Verses 3 and 4. "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; and >behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven >crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars >of heaven, and did cast them to the earth."(1) These signs are an >allusion to the dynasty of the Umayyads who dominated the Muhammadan >religion. Seven heads and seven crowns mean seven countries and >dominions over which the Umayyads had power: they were the Roman >dominion around Damascus; and the Persian, Arabian and Egyptian >dominions, together with the dominion of Africa - that is to say, >Tunis, Morocco and Algeria; the dominion of Andalusia, which is now >Spain; and the dominion of the Turks of Transoxania. The Umayyads had >power over these countries. The ten horns mean the names of the >Umayyad rulers - that is, without repetition, there were ten names of >rulers, meaning ten names of commanders and chiefs - the first is Abu >Sufyan and the last Marvan - but several of them bear the same name. >So there are two Muaviya, three Yazid, two Valid, and two Marvan; but >if the names were counted without repetition there would be ten. The >Umayyads, of whom the first was Abu Sufyan, Amir of Mecca and chief of >the dynasty of the Umayyads, and the last was Marvan, destroyed the >third part of the holy and saintly people of the lineage of Muhammad >who were like the stars of heaven. " >(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, pages 69-70) > > >> -------- For those of you who are expecting me to accuse the Baha'i >>prophet of being the anti-Christ, allow me to dispense with accusations, >>and instead to express concern. This concern arises from the plain >>words of the Bible, and are limited to that. As a former Catholic, I >>endured accusations that the Catholic church is the vessel of the >>anti-Christ, the Harlot of Babylon, and so forth. These accusations are >>well grounded in the Bible, very detailed, convincingly set forth, and >>false. In contrast, Adolph Hitler fulfilled a great many of the >>prophecies concerning the Beast. But the nature of prophecy is that its >>fulfillment is always complete, unequivocal, and perfect. Hitler merely >>foreshadowed those prophecies, as many prophecies in fact are >>foreshadowed before they are fulfilled. ------- > >You may find this Website interesting: >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled/ > >> ------- So I am not making accusations. I am asking Baha'is to examine >>for themselves what to expect of the anti-Christ when, as Rev 12:12 >>predicts, "...woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down >>to you with great wrath..." -------- ------- ------ ---- >> ----- Some people claim that Revelation was already fulfilled centuries >>ago by historical events. But these claims do not account for the >>global destruction and unprecedented horrors described, which clearly >>have not yet occurred in anything of like magnitude. ------ >> ------- Nor do they account for this: "...all the inhabitants of the >>earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the >>foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was >>slaughtered." (Rev 13:8) --------- > >I believe this is a reference to one of the Umayyad caliphs, who >changed the point of adoration of Islam (the point to which all must >turn for prayer) from the Ka'aba in Mecca to Damascus. Damascus was >the seat of the Umayyad dynasty at the time. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:26 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast (& MAI??) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,alt.bible.prophecy Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 3:36 PM Subject: Re: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast (& MAI??) >The Revelation of St. John is a book rich with allusions to events to >come, and descriptions that if all taken literally would be too >fantastic even, perhaps, for Hollywood to take on. I mean no disrespect >here, only to point out that it inevitably must be interpreted. Also, >as with all scripture, perhaps there may be a number of readings >possible throughout history. Hence, as I mentioned in a thread on "What >is the Baha'i Faith ..." on alt.bible.prophecy (and as many others have >posted on diverse discussions on Revelation on various newsgroups) there >have been many interpretations of the prophecies in that Book (there was >even one that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the anti-Christ). > >Thanks, BTW, to Roger for bringing up Abdu'l-Baha's explanation of Chs. >11 & 12 of Revelation -- this points to another interesting topic (and >separate thread) on the importance of Islam for understanding the Bible. >Thanks also to Robert for his discussion of fulfilment of prophecies. > >One problem with apocolyptic prophecy is its potential for being >narrowly misread by individuals and small groups as diverse as the >Branch Davidians, Oum Shamriki (sp.?), and a group of covenant-breakers. >Yet taken in the context of history and holy scriptures it provides a >basis IMHO for understanding processes of human evolution towards God. >There is, I think, a need to explore Writings such as the Revelation of >St. John more deeply in the context of the Baha'i Revelation from >multiple standpoints (historic, textual, interreligious [comparative] >to help get beyond what one professor (non-Baha'i) of mine referred to >as the pathology of end-of-the-world predictions to a fuller >understanding of the relationship between good (peace, justice, unity, >love, tolerance, piety, ...) and evil (selfishness, will-to-power, >divisiveness, hate, ...), and what really is ending and beginning at >this phase of human history. > >"Yu Zir" expresses concern about the spread of world order as a dual >process that must first be evil (promulgated by Satan) and then godly >(brought by the Return of Christ). First let me say that I am not at >all lumping him together with the category above, as he seems quite >sincere and thoughtful. Yet he lays out his understanding of this >prophecy and then expresses concern about Baha'u'llah and Baha'i >teachings about world unity. What's missing is 1) an exploration of >how Baha'i teachings go against the actions attributed to the "beastly >empire" discussed in Revelation (as I touched on briefly in the >abovementioned thread on a.b.p.) and 2) an exploration of other possible >understandings of the "rule by Satan" that he reads in Revelation. To >be fair, one shouldn't expect him to explore these for us, but I think >it is important to bring these out so that the implication Yu seems to >make don't hang out there. In the rest of this posting I will offer >some musings on the second point. > >The world is already one, this is ever more apparent. Yet how to handle >this indisputable reality is a matter of real problems and disputes. >Some trends seem to favor the well-being of some over others; some >spread a kind of materialism (consumerism) which arguably threaten poor >people, entire cultures, and the environment. Although I will not argue >that "global consumerism" is Satanic globalization (and should point out >that this is not a Baha'i interpretation either), I think that if one >interprets Revelation as saying that "Satanic rule" must precede the >Godly world order, one should seriously examine the hypothesis that >certain trends in global economics and use of information technology >(not all, but certain ones which seem to favor multinational >corporations and which compile consumer profiles of individuals etc.) >is indeed the embodiment of an ungodly approach to running the affairs >of the world. > >One of area of current concern that I'm just learning about is the >OECD's >"Multilateral Agreement on Investment" (MAI), which to read opponents' >descriptions is really an embodiment of evil: > > "MAI is a would-be secret agreement of the 24 richest countries in >the OECD (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development) due to >be signed in a few months time. It is the most extreme form of >globalisation yet proposed, making the interests of transnational >corporations supercede national laws. If signed it would mean amongst >other things that no country could impose restrictions on foreign >investment, or implement social, labour, environmental, cultural or >human rights protection. It would take 20 years before a country could >withdraw from the agreement. > "Countries that sign the MAI will be required to: >-- Open all economic sectors, including real estate, broadcasting and >natural resources to foreign ownership. >-- Treat foreign investors no less favorably than domestic firms. >-- Remove performance requirements, which are laws that require >investors to behave in a certain way in exchange for market access. >-- Remove restrictions on the movement of capital. >-- Compensate investors in full when their assets are expropriated, >either through seizure or regulation. >-- Ensure that states and localities comply with the MAI. >-- Accept a dispute-resolution process allowing investors to sue >governments for damages before international panels when they believe a >country's laws are in violation of MAI." >-Shawn Ewald > >More info can be read at: >https://www.greenecon.org/MAI/index.html >https://world.std.com/~dadams/MAI/ > >In a sense (albeit perhaps extreme), consumerism is the worship of >material goods, and corporations need that worship (i.e., want beyond >need) to prosper. How can efforts to spread the power of multinational >corporations and their power to market be characterized (I'm not >seeking a simplistic answer here) in the context of the prophecies of >Revelation and indeed of prophecies in the Baha'i Scriptures and other >Holy Books? > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:27 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast (& MAI??) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 8:03 PM Subject: Re: Baha'is, the Bible, & the Beast (& MAI??) Thanks to Roger, Robert and Donald for their well tempered and tolerant responses to a post that I had feared might be taken other than as intended. ------- ----- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------- ----- ------- I have to be uncharacteristically brief on this Good Friday, but I want to touch on a few things today and then later in more detail. First, the references to the Dragon sweeping down a third of the stars from heaven. This passage is found not only in Revelation but also elsewhere in the Bible (I'll look it up). In Rev it is associated with Michael the archangel's war against Satan in heaven, in which Satan drew a third of the heavenly host to his rebellion against God. I remark on it because it is one of several passages which when interpreted otherwise eviscerate the context. Revelation also contains very clear and specific prophecies of global destruction on a massive scale (including a description which fits that of an asteroid crashing into the ocean and destroying a third of the ships at sea). ------ ------- -------- ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ As to Donald's references to materialism, it is very informative and on point. Two chapters (plus) of Rev are devoted to Babylon, which will be cast down into ashes in the space of just one hour, much to the distress of the world's merchants. ----- ---- --- - -------- ----- -------- --------- ------ ------- Finally, as to the arguments about (roughly paraphrased) whether we would recognize the Messiah if He came today, those are very valid points. As Revelation clearly shows us, many will be deceived both ways: not recognizing the true Messiah, and then worshipping the Beast. Fortunately, God does not expect us to be wise enough to make that distinction with our intellect. He will make it for us in answer to our prayers, and reveal it to us through our love for Him and for each other. -------- --------- ------- ----- ------- ------- -------- ---------- I wish everyone a happy and blessed Easter. He is risen! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:27 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Revelations Made Plain fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 9:19 PM Subject: Revelations Made Plain > > >Dear YUZIR, > You seem convinced that Baha'u'llah is at best a false prophet, or at worst >the anti-Christ. Well, He cannot be the anti-Christ, because Revelations says >that the anti-Christ shall have "no desire for women". Baha'u'llah had 3 wives >and many children (remember, Abraham did as well, and Paul calls Abraham the >Father of the Faithful). Could then Baha'u'llah be a false prophet? Sure! It's >certainly possible! It is equally as possible that Baha'u'llah was Whom He >said He was: the Spirit of Truth. If the Son (Word of God) can incarnate as >Jesus of Nazareth, then why not the Holy Spirit as Husayn Ali of Nur? > Now, you've warned Baha'is against "false prophets". Very good! There is a >false prophet named Jamshid Maani, who claims to be a "Baha'i Prophet" and the >successor to Baha'u'llah! Baha'is should be warned. But please be aware that >false prophets exist in Christendom as well. >For example: Your interpretations of Revelations in NOT based upon the work of >the early Church Fathers (some of whom were the disciples of the Disciples of >Jesus), but upon the works of Hal Lindsey and other Evangelical Christian >eschatology (last times) writers. Now, Lindsey and others write the following: >1) That the Beast of Revelations is the 10-member European Community (now >Union) >2) That the end-times Anti-Christ will head this Union. >3) That all true Christians will be Raptured (i.e. meet Jesus in the sky) >before the Anti-Christ persecutes people (Pre-Trib Rapture). >4) That the "666" refers to a computer-system whereby computer-chips will be >placed into the hands or foreheads of buyers and sellers. >5) Anti-Christ will be heralded by a False Prophet > > However, you should be aware of the following facts: >1) Lindsey and ALL of the other Evangelical End-Times writers are relying on >the interpretations of John Darby; a British Evangelical who made these >interpretations popular in the mid-19th century. Before Darby, Christians did >not interpret Revelations thusly (they usually called the Pope the >Anti-Christ, Muhammad the False Prophet, the Papacy the Great Red Dragon, >etc.). >2) Darby got his interpretation from the Irvingites; a group of British >pentecostals who founded the Catholic Apostolic Church. The Irvingites had a >number of "prophets and apostles"; including a number of women. Several of >these women (Margaret MacDonald for one) received 'visions' in which these now >popular Evangelical doctrines were given. >3) Margaret MacDonald later confessed that her visions were 'false' and >invented. This is long after John Darby left for America, and began to preach >Revelations based upon the visions of the Irvingite "prophets". >4) Darby did NOT tell his American audiences where he got his information, but >presented his interpretations as his own 'inspired' insights into Revelations. >5) One of Darby's disciples was a man named Schofield, who wrote commentaries >on "Darby's" teachings. Disciples of Schofield later founded the Dallas >Theological Seminary; which is the 'factory' which produced Hal Lindsey and >many of the popular End-Times Prophecy writers in the Evangelical Christian >world. > > So, YES! We need to be aware of FALSE PROPHETS! And the Irvingite prophets >were about as FALSE as they come! Hal Lindsey wrote in *The Late Great Planet >Earth* that the Rapture would occur in 1981, and the Second Coming in 1988! >(40 years--or one generation--after the State of Israel was founded). Ye shall >know them by their fruits! > >The TRUE interpretation of Revelations is as follows: > >1) ANTI-CHRIST=Apollonius of Tyana >2) MAN OF SIN=Nero (666) >3) THE BEAST=The Pagan Roman Empire (Founded on 10 hills, and had seven kings >[ceasars] by the time John wrote Revelations. >4) MARK OF THE BEAST=Roman coins which bore the image of the Emperior. The >'mark on the right hand' refers to the Roman business tax, and the 'mark on >the forehead' refers to the Roman poll or 'head' tax. No one could buy or sell >without the mark (i.e. coin). >5) GREAT RED DRAGON=the Umayyad Caliphs >6) WOMAN IN THE WILDERNESS=the Fatimids (descendants of Fatima and Ali) >7) YOUNG CHILD=the Imams, especially the Imam Mahdi (The Bab) > > You should know that the European Union now has 13 members (not 10), and it >will have more soon. It is ***NOT*** the empire of the Anti-Christ! The empire >of the Anti-Christ was the pagan Roman Empire; which persecuted Christians. > > Also be aware that while the New World Order will first be secular and >Humanistic, it will EVENTUALLY turn into the World Order of Baha'u'llah; just >as the pagan Roman Empire eventually became the HOLY Roman Empire. > > Baha'u'llah is the incarnation of the Holy Spirit; the One who inspired all >of the Prophets. Jesus IS the Savior of our souls, but Baha'u'llah came to >save the species from extinction. > > As regards to the Rapture. In the Greek it says that Jesus will meet us in >the "aer" (Unseen World), not "sky" as Evangelicals misread it! We meet Jesus >when we die (enter the Unseen World). Jesus and the Holy Spirit are two >different Beings, but if you reject one, you reject both. Reject false >prophets (the Irvingites) and their apostles (Darby, Lindsey, et al), and come >to Him Who inspired the true Prophets of God! >Darrick Evenson > >In article <6gjo7g$kvn$1@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, > YUZIR@webtv.net (YU ZIR) wrote: >> >> One thing the Bible emphatically warns us about is false prophets. >> These warnings are scattered throughout the New Testament. But in the >> final book of the Bible, the Revelation, that warning reaches its most >> urgent level. There, we are confronted with the ultimate false prophet, >> Satan himself, the impostor and deceiver, claiming to be God. ----- > ------ While I seem to recall some mention of false prophets in Baha'i >> literature, and also some references to Revelation, I have yet to see >> any Baha'i explain (as opposed to explaining away) those passages which >> most clearly describe the methods and goals of the anti-Christ. I >> invite such review. --------- >> -------- For those of you who are expecting me to accuse the Baha'i >> prophet of being the anti-Christ, allow me to dispense with accusations, >> and instead to express concern. This concern arises from the plain >> words of the Bible, and are limited to that. As a former Catholic, I >> endured accusations that the Catholic church is the vessel of the >> anti-Christ, the Harlot of Babylon, and so forth. These accusations are >> well grounded in the Bible, very detailed, convincingly set forth, and >> false. In contrast, Adolph Hitler fulfilled a great many of the >> prophecies concerning the Beast. But the nature of prophecy is that its >> fulfillment is always complete, unequivocal, and perfect. Hitler merely >> foreshadowed those prophecies, as many prophecies in fact are >> foreshadowed before they are fulfilled. ------- >> ------- So I am not making accusations. I am asking Baha'is to examine >> for themselves what to expect of the anti-Christ when, as Rev 12:12 >> predicts, "...woe to the earth and the sea, for the devil has come down >> to you with great wrath..." -------- ------- ------ ---- >> ----- Some people claim that Revelation was already fulfilled centuries >> ago by historical events. But these claims do not account for the >> global destruction and unprecedented horrors described, which clearly >> have not yet occurred in anything of like magnitude. ------ >> ------- Nor do they account for this: "...all the inhabitants of the >> earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the >> foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was >> slaughtered." (Rev 13:8) --------- >> ------- What most concerns me for Baha'is is the centrality of a world >> government and a one world religion which they seek to establish. >> Revelation describes the establishment of two world orders: first, one >> by the Beast, and only after its destruction by Christ in His triumphant >> return, a second world order headed by God. --- ----- There is nothing >> to be gained by dancing around these passages in their context. They >> are a blunt warning, quite specific, in many cases leaving nothing to >> the interpretation, so to speak. ------ >> ----- I realize that even the merest hint that the Baha'i teachings are >> false will evoke anger, suspicion, or at least dismissal in some people. >> But you might as well deal with the issue now, because I can assure you >> that, as more and more readers of Revelation hear the Baha'i teachings, >> this is going to come up a lot. Frankly, I don't see anyone in the >> world (or history) meeting all the prophecies of the anti-Christ yet. >> But they will assuredly come to pass. And there is only one way to >> avoid the deception: to have your name written in the book of life of >> the Lamb that was slaughtered. ----- ------ ------- -------- ------- >> ------ ------ ------- God loves you and (as undeserving as I am) even >> me! >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:28 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Children of Adam Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 10:06 PM Subject: Re: Children of Adam > >Abir Majid wrote in message <353124C0.3F90@geocities.com>... >>O children of Adam! When Messengers come to you from among you, who >>convey my verses, then those who take heed and amend will have neither >>fear nor regret. >> Qur’an 7:35 >> >>Does this verse addressing the children of Adam include the Muslims? It >>would seem this way: >> > >Adam is the father of all mankind. Everyone is included. > >Omar > >> >>O children of Adam! Attire yourselves in every mosque ( masjid); eat and >>drink, but do not be wasteful. >> Qur’an 7:31 >> >>-- >> >>Abir Majid >>https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >>https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >>email: abirm@geocities.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:29 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: failed bahai prophecy and historical revisionism II Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Abir Majid Newsgroups: alt.religion.islam,alt.religion.bahai,misc.misc Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 3:12 PM Subject: Re: failed bahai prophecy and historical revisionism II >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca (aka nokhodch)wrote: >> >> Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > >May peace and God's tender mercy be upon all. > [...] >> >> Answering bahaullah >> >> God be praised, the site is having a major impact. So many people have emailed >> to say that they were guided rightly from this site. You are also invited to >> read the story of 3 former bahais who came to believe in the truth of Islam >> from the guidance of God Almighty. >> >> Peace. >> >> Afshin Afrashteh >> In Islam lies all salvation !!! >> ------------------------------------ >> By Vance Salisbury >> >> Revision, Censorship, and Suppression in Modern Baha'i Literature >> > >What's the matter dear Afshin? I thought you guys were not very pleased >by the efforts and tactics of Christian missionaries !! Now I see you >have solicited the help of Mr. Salisbury to do your work for you. Aren't >you tired by now from rehashing old issues that have been answered again >and again? And what's this about stories of former Baha'is? Haven't you >guys been rediculing the stories on Christian web sites of former >Muslims becoming Christian? Now you are doing exactly the same??: > > >Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) >as saying: You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before >you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered >into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We >said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words) >"those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)? > > Sahih Muslim, Hadith 6448 > >(btw I thought you said earlier that it's sacriligious to use upper case >letters in your name, are you "enlightened" differently now? Maybe by >the new company you keep? !!) > >>To read more of this enlightening article you are encouraged to visit this >>site: > >Since when does one go to a rabbi to learn about Christianity, or to a >priest to learn about Islam? For truth about the Baha’I faith, visit: > >https://www.bahai.org > >or bring your questions (or objections) to soc.religion.bahai > >-- > >Abir Majid >https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >email: abirm@geocities.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:31 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Differences in Belief fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Abir Majid Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 4:40 PM Subject: Differences in Belief >Dear Kavosh, you and I do not disagree on the finality of prophethood >but on the finality of revelation. Let not this difference of belief >become a cause for hatred. > >Kavosh Soltani wrote: > >> You [Abir] wrote: >> > I believe in Islam and love and revere all of God’s >> > Messengers and Books. May you recognize God’s will >> > and truly submit yourself to Him. >> >> They have "Obedience" on their lips; but when they >> leave thee, a section of them Meditate all night on >> THINGS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THOU TELLEST THEM. >> But Allah records their nightly (plots): So keep >> clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah, and enough >> is Allah as a disposer of affairs. >> (The holy Quran, 4.081) >> > >[4:94] and say not to any one who offers you a salutation: "Thou art >none of a believer!" > >[40:28] A believer, a man from among the people of Pharaoh, who had >concealed his faith, said: "Will ye slay a man because he says, 'My Lord >is Allah'?- when he has indeed come to you with Clear (Signs) from your >Lord? and if he be a liar, on him is (the sin of) his lie: but, if he is >telling the Truth, then will fall on you something of the (calamity) of >which he warns you: Truly Allah guides not one who transgresses and >lies! > >-- > >Abir Majid >https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >email: abirm@geocities.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:31 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 9:38 AM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >Steve says, >"...to claim they(The New Testament Scriptures) are the inerrent Word of >God would be a bit of a stretch." > >I notice immediately that Steve fails to define "inerrant". If He means >the kind of radical fundamentalist legalism that distinctly unChristian >but has heretically plagued the Christian world since its inception he >is correct. But then, that becomes a meaningless straw man, for it does >not represent Christianity as intended in SCripture. >There is a consensus across denominational Christianity over basic >fundamentals Steve beyond which ones beliefs become distinctly non >Christian. These are borders that Baha'i belief almost universally >crosses beyond in its conception of Mankind's basic nature as "sinful" >is, who Jesus Christ is, and what Salvation means in relation to both. >The Bible is not "inerrant" on a legalistic level that roots out Scribal >errors in geneologies or the distinct details in the reports of living >witnesses. One can trivialize to create the kinds of problems one would >never consider meaningful in a court of law or even by way of common >sense in seeking a documents intended Message.It is pleasing to some to >try to render the Scriptures less than "inerrant" so that they may >become subjective and easily redefined. >But there is a level of inerrancy that is inherent within Scripture. >Such includes concepts like; Man's true and genuine sinful >responsibility (true and real "sin" as a definitive reality that >seperates us from God and that we ourselves can do nothing to save >ourselves from the consequences of), Jesus as GOD the Son (not just a >reflection) who could only come as that Messiah by virtue of having BEEN >God, Isaiah 43:11, 59:15. Jesus' literal and physical Resurrection from >the dead which signifigantly proves His PERSONAL Resurrection to eternal >life and thus proves by association His PERSONAL return (not a symbolic >return fulfilled by some different "person" ie Baha'u'llah) In the >Gospel of Matthew Jesus says (after His death and Resurrection) "touch >me and see. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I >have." > > >These are indeed "inerrant" and unmistakeadle fundamentals that DO count >toward right faith.Christianity is not based upon the legalistic straw >man Baha'is assume in their argumentation. There is a "Christian" >viewpoint based solidly on Scripture that is not rooted in >fundamentalist legalism that is still diametrically opposed to Baha'i >theological doctrines. So, Away with the scribal errors and trivialities >in details of witnesses who more signifigantly had a COMMON and inerrant >Message. "Jesus Christ is risen." And, as told in Acts 1 "This same >Jesus will return in the same manner as he has departed" Inerrancy in >doctrinal intention is steadfast in Scripture and not at all the same as >the internally contradictory basic doctrines in Baha'i religion over >topics like the nature of mankind (progressive or regressive) or the >station of manifestations (all common or with Baha'u'llah as >supreme).Realizing that I have not supported these immediate criticisms >with the quotations that definitively reveal them, I direct the seeker >on an investigation for truth to the Fireside Letters website; > >https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht ml > > >In Christ , >Dale:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: fw Baha'is and the Bible fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Steve Tomljenovic Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 7:51 PM Subject: Re: fw Baha'is and the Bible >Dale Grider wrote: >> >> Steve says, >> "...to claim they(The New Testament Scriptures) are the inerrent Word of >> God would be a bit of a stretch." >> >> I notice immediately that Steve fails to define "inerrant". If He means >> the kind of radical fundamentalist legalism that distinctly unChristian >> but has heretically plagued the Christian world since its inception he >> is correct. > >Yes, this is exactly what I mean. And, I would differ, it is very >christian, >as you have proven in this same post! :) > >> But then, that becomes a meaningless straw man, for it does >> not represent Christianity as intended in SCripture. >> There is a consensus across denominational Christianity over basic >> fundamentals Steve beyond which ones beliefs become distinctly non >> Christian. > >what? The consesus interpretation argument means nothing. Martin >Luther >borke with that tradition long ago. If you want to use these arguments, >then you might as well condemn all christians who are not Catholic. To >set bounds on interpretation to be within the mean is nonsense. >Futhermore, where do many of these consensus arguments come from? From >strict adherence to the wording of the Bible itself! > >Gnostics were condemned as heretics too, but how do we prove their >interpretations were wrong? They had their own Gospels to boot! One >could argued were as legitimate as the ones which made it into the >current >Bible. Maybe the Gnostics were right, and Satan has decieved all the >Chistians >after them to hell fire. Hey, you never know... > >> These are borders that Baha'i belief almost universally >> crosses beyond in its conception of Mankind's basic nature as "sinful" >> is, who Jesus Christ is, and what Salvation means in relation to both. >> The Bible is not "inerrant" on a legalistic level that roots out Scribal >> errors in geneologies or the distinct details in the reports of living >> witnesses. One can trivialize to create the kinds of problems one would >> never consider meaningful in a court of law or even by way of common >> sense in seeking a documents intended Message.It is pleasing to some to >> try to render the Scriptures less than "inerrant" so that they may >> become subjective and easily redefined. > >Well, I see no alternative. There are two things I have to mesh. One, >the >reality of Christ, which I cannot deny. Two, the reality of >Baha'u'llah, >which I cannot deny. If this means I must "bend" the wording of the >Bible, >whose exact wording is in question anyway, then so be it. And if you >don't like it, well, too bad. :) It's a free society, and I am free >to my own interpretations. And if God codemns me to Hell fire for >being decieved by something so obviously good, then let me worry about >it. >Because if this is the case, then God is completely illogical, and >trying >to worry about which path leads to salvation with rational arguments >is sheer folly. > >> But there is a level of inerrancy that is inherent within Scripture. >> Such includes concepts like; > >Let me comment: > >> Man's true and genuine sinful >> responsibility (true and real "sin" as a definitive reality that >> seperates us from God and that we ourselves can do nothing to save >> ourselves from the consequences of), > >Baha'i belief as well, though worded differently and expanded on. > >> Jesus as GOD the Son (not just a >> reflection) who could only come as that Messiah by virtue of having BEEN >> God, Isaiah 43:11, 59:15. > >I believe Baha'u'llah is God, and is not at the same time. Just as I >believe >Jesus was God, and not God at the same time. BTW, what is the relation >between >the Son and the Father anyway? Why would Jesus even make a distinction >between >Son and Father. Why didn't he just say He was God and leave it at that? > >> Jesus' literal and physical Resurrection from >> the dead which signifigantly proves His PERSONAL Resurrection to eternal >> life and thus proves by association His PERSONAL return (not a symbolic >> return fulfilled by some different "person" ie Baha'u'llah) > >First, I believe that Jesus's body physically dispappeared when His soul >ascendended into heaven. As to whether his physically body ascended >into >heaven I rather doubt, as Jesus admonished his followers to turn >aspirations >lives away from the things of this world and to the spiritual Kingdom. >Now, >wouldn't it be contradictory if Jesus wanted to take his physical body >which >he apperntly considered worthless? Futhermore, even if he did take his >body with >him, this in no way proves he will bring the same body back when he >returns. Maybe >he'll make a brand new one, because He is the Son of God, and if He >want's to, that's >His business. Who are we to say how Jesus will return? > >Plus what does this mean then? > >John 16:12-13: I have many things to say unto you but you cannot bear >them >now; howbeit when He the spirit of truth shall come He will guide you >unto >all truth. > >Who is the spirit of truth? If this is Jesus, then why is Jesus talking >about >him as another person? And if it is not Jesus, then why is Jesus >talking >of him as if he is greater than the Himself (Jesus)? > >I think Baha'u'llah elegantly explained this. The Manifestations of God >are inwardly >the same person, as they are all perfect reflections (or incarnations if >you prefer) of >God. However, outwardly, because of physical circumstances, and the >potency of their >revelation, they appear different. This is a very logical argument, no? > >> In the >> Gospel of Matthew Jesus says (after His death and Resurrection) "touch >> me and see. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I >> have." > >I don't understand what you are getting at. I think we do have >spiritual bodies. >But I really do not understand the fixation that many christians have on >this >concept. Neither of us has experienced the afterlife, so to comment on >what it >is like there is speculation. So if Jesus "appears" as flesh and bones, >then to >me, this means nothing more than Him having the power to do this. When >putting this >quote into context, we see that what Jesus meant by saying He was not a >ghost >was not to imply that He took his physical body with Him. It was a >remark to >calm their fears. > >Luke:24 > They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. > He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise >in your minds? > Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; > a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have." > When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. > And while they still did not believe it because of joy and >amazement, he > asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" > They gave him a piece of broiled fish, > and he took it and ate it in their presence. > > >Furthermore, if you claim that Jesus took his physical body with him, >then you are >contradicting Paul: > >1 Cor: > > There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the > splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, > and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. > The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars >another; > and star differs from star in splendor. > So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that >is sown is > perishable, it is raised imperishable; > it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in >weakness, it is > raised in power; > it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If >there is a > natural body, there is also a spiritual body. > >> >> These are indeed "inerrant" and unmistakeadle fundamentals that DO count >> toward right faith.Christianity is not based upon the legalistic straw >> man Baha'is assume in their argumentation. There is a "Christian" >> viewpoint based solidly on Scripture that is not rooted in >> fundamentalist legalism that is still diametrically opposed to Baha'i >> theological doctrines. > >As an aside, I have visited your site, and I do believe you have, in >your >arguments there, have made prolific use of the very "straw men" you so >ardently condemn. > >> So, Away with the scribal errors and trivialities >> in details of witnesses who more signifigantly had a COMMON and inerrant >> Message. "Jesus Christ is risen." And, as told in Acts 1 "This same >> Jesus will return in the same manner as he has departed" Inerrancy in >> doctrinal intention is steadfast in Scripture and not at all the same as >> the internally contradictory basic doctrines in Baha'i religion over >> topics like the nature of mankind (progressive or regressive) or the >> station of manifestations (all common or with Baha'u'llah as >> supreme). > >I don't understand how you see progressive revelation as contradictory. >Futhermore, I don't understand your concerns about "the station of >manifestations". I don't see any inconstencies here. Maybe you are >interpreting it wrong? :) > >> Realizing that I have not supported these immediate criticisms >> with the quotations that definitively reveal them, I direct the seeker >> on an investigation for truth to the Fireside Letters website; >> >> https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.htm l > >May the Lord all lead us down the right path..(and keep up from argueing >over it..) > >steve > >> >> In Christ , >> Dale:) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:33 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 2:40 AM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) > >Abir Majid wrote in message <35312DCA.699C@geocities.com>... >>The Holy Qur’an tells us about a covenant between God and the Prophet >>(SAAWS): >> >>And call to mind when WE took from the Prophets their covenant, and from >>thee [Muhammad], and from Noah and Abraham, and Moses and Jesus, son of >>Mary, and WE indeed, took from them a solemn covenant; >> Qur'an 33:8 >> >>This covenant which is made through all the prophets is further >>mentioned in this verse: >> >>And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: Certainly what I >>have given you of Book and wisdom-- then an apostle comes to you >>verifying that which is with you, you must believe in him, and you must >>aid him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in this (matter)? >>They said: We do affirm. He said: Then bear witness, and I (too) am of >>the bearers of witness with you. Whoever therefore turns back after >>this, these it is that are the transgressors. >> Qur'an 3:81-82 >> > >Again you seem to mix the revelation given specifically to Muhammed with a >possible interpretation which is more general. Yet this very ayyat was >revealed to Muhammed about his work and is limited to that. > >Omar > >> >>O children of Adam! When Messengers come to you from among you, who >>convey my verses, then those who take heed and amend will have neither >>fear nor regret. >> Qur’an 7:35 >> >>-- >> >>Abir Majid >>https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >>https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >>email: abirm@geocities.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:34 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? >Picking up on this thread, I note a new book on reincarnation from a >Baha'i perspective: >_The Reincarnation Mystery Revealed_ by H. M. Munje (Baha'i Publishing >Trust, New Delhi, 1998). "A critical look at the religious belief of >reincarnation and possible approaches to explaining this widely held >belief in light of the teachings of the Baha'i Faith." > >Second, to reply to "Yu Zir"'s reply to my posting. Thanks Yu for >your comments. You say that Baha'i teachings on the afterlife differ >from the Biblical one in two respects: 1) that the idea of a succession >of afterlives is not in keeping with the Judeo-Christian (& Islamic one >should add) teaching on the finality of the afterlife (i.e., it's either >heaven or hell), and 2) the Baha'i teaching of progression towards God >is different from the Biblical teaching of the "victory finally won." >Basically, we are in agreement about the differences, but some comment >is necessary. On point #1, an aspect I did not bring up is that Baha'is >are taught that apart from some general descriptions, we really can't >know what the details of the afterlife are (this is generally true of >all religions), and that the principal distinction is between this >earthly life and what follows. It isn't as I understand it, a >progression of afterlives, but a progression through the worlds of God >(heavens? -- here I should do some more research to post the quotes). >On point #2, there is a fundamental conceptual difference in the sense >of afterlife as motion in the Baha'i Revelation as opposed to being >(apparently) static states in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings. >Here the Baha'i teachings seem a bit closer to the Hindu and Buddhist >teachings of the soul in movement (although Baha'i teachings deny the >possibility of a soul returning to an earthly body - we get only one >chance at that). > >You make a further comment in concluding about this discussion of >heaven/hell as opposed to reincarnation or the Baha'i teachings as >a "clear demarcation between Judeo-Christian concepts divinely revealed, >and eastern mysticism humanly contrived." This is one way (an >exclusivist one) of approaching the differences in religious teachings >about the afterlife, but one I have not chosen to take. What you are >saying here as I read it is that all religious teachings about the >afterlife other than your reading of the Bible are merely human >contrivances. However much I respect you for your faith, I can't agree >with this dismissal of entire religions, which many people understand >as divine revelations. > >Again, one of the things I found interesting about the afterlife as >described in the Baha'i Sacred Writings is that on the surface it is >not in agreement with either the heaven/hell dichotomy or cycles of >reincarnation. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:34 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Historical revisionism-II fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, April 09, 1998 7:03 PM Subject: Historical revisionism-II >Peace be upon those that follow true guidance, > > >To read more of this enlightening article you are encouraged to visit this >site: > >Answering bahaullah > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm > >God be praised, the site is having a major impact. So many people have emailed >to say that they were guided rightly from this site. You are also invited to >read the story of 3 former bahais who came to believe in the truth of Islam >from the guidance of God Almighty. > >Peace. > >Afshin Afrashteh > >------------------------------------ >By Vance Salisbury > >Revision, Censorship, and Suppression in Modern Baha'i Literature > >While Babi-Baha'i history suffers a kind of distortion at the hands of Baha'i >authors which is rather >subtle, a more direct approach is taken by the Baha'i Administration and >publishers, through revision >of previously printed materials and by a review process of future >publications. This ongoing policy of >updating earlier writings and regulating works by Baha'is, whether for >publication in Baha'i organs or >otherwise, is intended to preserve doctrinal purity and to "'present a true >picture of the Faith to the >general public...'" (40) Justification for such practices have generally >centered on the need to correct >minor errors and update statistics. (41) Or, in the case of the review >process, to ensure some >standard of academic quality. (42) However, the evidence suggests that the the >primary concerns >are the promotion of a consistent picture of Baha'i history and dogma, the >blotting out of references >to failed predictions and promises, and the diversion of readers from >differing or hostile points of >view. > >1. Posthumous Additions, Deletions, and Suppression in Popular Baha'i Books > >During the first half of this century, English speaking Baha'is who were >interested in the history of the >movement generally came to rely upon the works of E.G Browne because, not only >were they >scholarly, reasonably sympathetic, and the most accurate sources at that time, >but because they >were essentially the only English language sources available which treated the >subject in any depth. >Therefore, Browne's works were cited quite frequently in a number of books by >popular Baha'i >authors. But, as time passed, Browne's materials began to be replaced by the >hagiographical works, >God Passes By and The Dawnbreakers; the former being a survey of the first >hundred years of the >movement by Shoghi Effendi, while The Dawnbreakers is a translation of an >early history by Nabil >Zarandi, a partisan of Baha'u'llah. (43) Browne's comments which cast the >Baha'i faith in a favorable >light still appear in Baha'i books, but his opinions on the origins and >evolution of the faith have >become quite unwelcome in recent years. (44) > >Evidence of attempts on the part of Baha'is to divert readers from Browne's >contributions to Babi >and Baha'i history can be seen by comparing original and later editions of All >Things Made New by >John Ferraby. Ferraby, who served as the National Secretary of the British >Baha'i community and >who was appointed a "Hand of the Cause" in 1957, penned an introduction to the >faith which was >published that same year. The original edition contains a list of references, >as well as a list of >abbreviations of "Baha'i Books Referred To." (45) Browne's Materials for the >Study of the Babi >Religion and his translation of A Traveller's Narrative , with notes, both >appear in these lists, but >have been removed from the 1987 edition, which was revised posthumously. >Further, Browne's >writings are still included in the text of the book, but the references have >been changed so that they >no longer direct the reader to the primary source, but to Baha'i books which >contain the same >quotations, as well material which is critical of Browne. (46) Apparently, the >editors wish to make >use of the scholar's favorable comments, but refer their readers to books >which question Browne's >value as an authority on the subject and which may neutralize potential >problems which could result >from consultation of his more critical writings. (47) > >Another case of suppression involves John E. Esselmont's use of materials by >the former Baha'i >historian Abdu'l-Husayn Ayati, named Avarih or Wanderer by Abdu'l-Baha. Avarih >was also a >"Hand of the Cause" who was commissioned by Abdu'l-Baha to write a history of >the Baha'i Faith in >Persian, which was published in 1923 and 1924. After completing a missionary >journey to Europe, >Avarih lost faith in the Cause and was subsequently declared a >Covenant-breaker by Shoghi Effendi. >(48) Covenant-breakers are those who have accepted Baha'u'llah as a >Manifestation of God, but >have later apostatized and opposed Baha'u'llah, his successors, or Baha'i >institutions. Faithful >members are instructed to shun entirely those who have rebelled against the >Cause of God and, >although not explicitly commanded, the reading of material written by >Covenant-breakers is >discouraged as well. (49) In the original edition of Baha'u'llah and the New >Era, Esselmont >expressed his gratitude to Avarih for his assistance in the preparation of the >book and referred to >him as "the learned Persian historian of the Baha'i movement." (50) In later >editions, this >acknowledgement has been removed from the preface without any notation. (51) >Avarih was quoted >five times in the original edition to shed additional light on certain events. >Two of these quotations >were dropped completely from the text of the 1980 edition, but the other three >were retained >entirely. However, in one note, Avarih's name has disappeared and there is no >reference to any >source. (52) In another he is quoted, but his name has been substituted by the >words "On this point >a historian remarks." (53) And finally, Esselmont included an account of the >marriage of >Abdu'l-Baha which was "kindly supplied to the writer by Janab-i-Avarih," but >the 1980 edition >refers only to "a Persian historian of the Baha'i Faith." (54) > >Actually, these are but a few of the many changes which were originally made >in the 1937 revision of >the Baha'u'llah and the New Era by "the American National Spiritual Assembly, >acting under the >advice and approval of Shoghi Effendi." The preface to the 1937 edition states >that the revision was >necessary to correct "a few errors of fact," to update Esselmont's >explanations of the stations of >Abdu'l-Baha and the Bab, and to remove his treatments of issues which are no >longer relevant to the >Faith. It is further stated that "these revisions in no respect alter the >original plan of Dr. Esselmont's >book, nor effect the major portion of his text." (55) These assertions, >however, are misleading. In >fact, there have been over forty changes, some of which include entire >sections or paragraphs >totaling hundreds of words. And, some of the revisions do "alter the original >plan of Dr. Esselmont's >book." This is certainly the case in the removal of Esselmont's eyewitness >accounts of discourses by >Abdu'l-Baha. > >Like many of the early Western believers, Esselmont was captivated by and >completely devoted to >his Master, Abdu'l-Baha. After corresponding with him, Esselmont received an >invitation to come to >Haifa in 1919, where he spent over two months as his guest. During this >period, the two discussed >the manuscript of Baha'u'llah and the New Era and "several valuable >suggestions" were made. (56) >In the 1923 edition, Esselmont included a number of statements by Abdu'l-Baha >which he had >personally heard and recorded. In spite of the value which these firsthand >accounts contribute to our >understanding of Abdu'l-Baha and the perceptions of early believers, some of >them have been >removed from later editions without any notation. (57) For example, on page >123, Abdu'l-Baha >advocated, in detail, a constitutional form of monarchy over a republican form >of government as >practiced in the United States. This was included in Esselmont's chapter >titled "True Civilization," to >illustrate the type of government which Baha'u'llah counseled nations to adopt >until the next >Manifestation of God appears. In later editions Esselmont's words have been >replaced with nearly >three pages of new material speaking merely of the fact that there will be >different types of >governments during the "Lesser Peace" and the "Most Great Peace." Although >Abdu'l-Baha was >quite specific, these later accretions are vague and give no clear >illustration of what type of rule >Baha'u'llah would have nations adopt. (58) > >Perhaps the most important change in Baha'u'llah and the New Era was made on >page 212 of the >1923 edition. Recorded as a Baha'i prophecy (59) concerning the "Coming of the >Kingdom of >God," Esselmont cited Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation of the last two verses of >the Book of Daniel >from the Bible. He stated that the 1335 days spoken of by Daniel represented >1335 solar years >from Muhammad's flight to Medina in 622 A.D., which would equal 1957 A.D.. >When asked >"'What shall we see at the end of the 1335 days?'," Abdu'l-Baha's reply was: >"'Universal Peace will >be firmly established, a Universal language promoted. Misunderstandings will >pass away. The Baha'i >Cause will be promulgated in all parts and the oneness of mankind established. >It will be most >glorious!'" (60) In editions published after his death, Esselmont's words have >been changed to say >that Abdu'l-Baha "reckoned the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy from the date >of the beginning of the >Muhammadan era " (61) and one of Abdu'l-Baha's Tablets is quoted on the same >subject in which >he writes, "'For according to this calculation a century will have elapsed >from the dawn of the Sun of >Truth....'" Esselmont appears to conclude that Abdu'l-Baha was referring to >the year 1963 and the >one hundredth anniversary of Baha'u'llah's public claim to be a Manifestation >of God. (62) These >words, however, were never written by the author, but were added posthumously. >And, it should be >noted that the phrase "'the dawn of the Sun of Truth'" is not a reference to a >particular year, in this >case 1863, but to a period of years when the Bab and his followers were >preparing the way for the >Manifestation of Baha'u'llah. Hence, they are commonly referred to as the >"Dawn-Breakers." (63) >Further, in another quotation which originally appeared on the same page, but >was also removed >from later editions, Abdu'l-Baha plainly stated, "' This is the Century of the >Sun of Truth. This is the >Century of the establishment of the Kingdom of God upon the earth.'" (64) >Esselmont recorded >Abdu'l-Baha as declaring explicitly that the prophecy was to be computed from >the Hijra or 622 >A.D. and that specific conditions would exist in the world upon it's >fulfillment in 1957. When it >became apparent that this Baha'i prophecy would not be fulfilled, it was >replaced with the ambiguous >material which has remained in the text to the present. This is evident from >the fact that, although >Esselmont's other eyewitness accounts were removed in the 1937 revision, the >record of >Abdu'l-Baha's prophecy was left intact by the American National Spiritual >Assembly and Shoghi >Effendi. It was not changed until after 1957. (65) Also, Abdu'l-Baha's >conviction that all of these >events would take place in this century have been expressed in other writings >and it is evident that >Shoghi Effendi shared his optimism as well. (66) > >Upon an examination of revisions in recent Baha'i literature, it seems that >the institution of the >Guardian of the Cause of God has been the subject of the most widespread >bowdlerization of texts. >The office of the Guardian was first established by Abdu'l-Baha in his Will >and Testament. Shoghi >Effendi, his eldest grandson, was named as the first in a succession of >hereditary Guardians. The >Guardian is the authoritative interpreter of the holy writings and the >permanent head of the Universal >House of Justice, the supreme administrative body which was referred to by >Baha'u'llah in his >Kitab-i-Aqdas. Through the Guardianship, the Cause of God is believed to be >safeguarded from >schism, because he is to be under the protection and infallible guidance of >Baha'u'llah and the Bab. >(67) However, the Baha'i world was thrown into confusion when Shoghi Effendi >died suddenly on >November 4, 1957. He had left no Will or instructions, and he had named no >successor. Since all of >Baha'u'llah's living male descendents had been declared Covenant-breakers by >Shoghi Effendi, the >Hands of the Cause of God assumed authority over the entire Baha'i community. >The Hands were a >group of leading Baha'is who had been chosen in accordance with Abdu'l-Baha's >Will and had been >named "the Chief Stewards of Baha'u'llah's embryonic World Commonwealth" by >Shoghi Effendi, >shortly before his death. The Hands of the Cause moved the community in a >direction which >culminated in the election of the Universal House of Justice. This was >accomplished with surprisingly >little opposition or schism. (68) > >Changes in books written prior to 1957 indicate that the failure of what was >to be a perpetual, >divinely ordained and protected institution became a delicate subject with the >Baha'i Administration. >But, it should be pointed out that, although there have been numerous >revisions, there are still books >which have not been changed at all. So, there does not appear to be a >conspiracy or systematic >program to eradicate the notion of a continuous Guardianship. However, the >books which have been >substantially reworked are popular introductions and histories, often used for >propagating the Faith. > >John Ferraby's All Things Made New is second only to Baha'u'llah and the New >Era in the >number of textual changes. The original edition, first published in 1957, was >dedicated "To Shoghi >Effendi: The First Guardian of the Baha'i Faith." (69) In the 1987 edition the >dedication is "To >Shoghi Effendi: The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith," implying that there was to >be only one Guardian. >(70) Ferraby originally stated that, "Abdu'l-Baha, in his turn, arranged that >the Cause would still have >a visible Centre after His passing, by providing for a succession of Guardians >of the Cause of God to >follow him." He then included over two hundred words from Abdu'l-Baha's Will >to explain the >importance of the perpetual Guardianship and how successors are to be chosen. >(71) This entire >section has been rewritten in later editions, stating that Abdu'l-Baha's Will >only provided for "the >possibility of a succession of Guardians..." And, the portions of >Abdu'l-Baha's Will have been >replaced with the statement,"Although there could have been a series of >Guardians, there is nowhere >in the writings any promise or guarantee that the line of Guardians would not >be broken but would >endure forever." (72) > >But, there were others who were also convinced that the institution of the >Guardianship would >continue. George Townshend, another Hand of the Cause, wrote that,"When it is >written that 'the >government shall be upon his shoulder' the reference can be to the Guardian >only and the continuing >'forever' of his sovereignty can only be referred to the lineage of succeeding >Guardians." (73) In later >editions, Townshend's interpretation of this passage from the Biblical book of >Isaiah which he said >could only apply to the Guardian has been changed to refer to "the devolution >by Baha'u'llah of >supreme authority upon his divinely guided institutions..." (74) Shoghi >Effendi's wife Ruhiyyih >Rabbani was convinced that her husband was the first in a line of Guardians. >In a book which is no >longer in print, she argued that: "The principle of successorship, endowed >with the right of Divine >interpretation, is the very hub of the Cause into which its Doctrines and Laws >fit like the spokes of a >wheel - tear out the hub and you have to throw the whole thing away." (75) > >Finally, it is important to consider Shoghi Effendi's understanding of the >nature of the Guardianship. >He was probably more familiar with his grandfather's Will than anyone and he >is believed to have >been endowed with divine inspiration to make authoritative interpretations of >the Writings. (76) The >original edition of The Selected Writings of Shoghi Effendi included numerous >references to the >institution of the Guardianship and its inspired origin, its perpetual nature, >and its absolute centrality >to the Covenant. This collection of his writings opened with a large extract >from the Will and >Testament of Abdu'l-Baha which could best be summed up as an appeal to the >believers to be "firm >in the Covenant" and follow the divine guidance which can only be found in the >Cause of God. In the >1975 edition most of the text of this appeal has been removed, except for two >paragraphs which >promised that the Twin Pillars of the Guardianship and the Universal House of >Justice are under the >guidance and protection of Baha'u'llah and the Bab. However, the phrase >"...and after him will >succeed the first-born of his lineal descendants" no longer appears at the end >of the paragraph >concerning the Guardian. (77) Two complete pages have been removed from the >original edition >without notation, including this explicit statement: > > Divorced from the institution of the Guardianship the World Order of >Baha'u'llah would > be mutilated and permanently deprived of that hereditary principle which, >as > Abdu'l-Baha has written, has been invariably upheld by the Law of God. >'In all Divine > Dispensations,' He states, in a Tablet addressed to a follower of the >Faith in Persia, 'the > eldest son hath been given extraordinary distinctions. Even the station >of prophet hood > hath been his birthright.' Without such an institution the integrity of >the Faith would be > imperilled, and the stability of the entire fabric would be gravely >endangered. (78) > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:35 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Historical revisionism-II fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 2:37 AM Subject: Re: Historical revisionism-II >"Peace be upon those that follow true guidance" > >Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards >and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring >balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the >peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure >of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but >know it. > >The eye of My loving-kindness weepeth sore over you, inasmuch as ye have >failed to recognize the One upon Whom ye have been calling in the daytime >and in the night season, at even and at morn. Advance, O people, with >snow-white faces and radiant hearts, unto the blest and crimson Spot, >wherein the Sadratu'l-Muntaha' is calling: "Verily, there is none other God >beside Me, the Omnipotent Protector, the Self-Subsisting!" > >O ye leaders of religion! Who is the man amongst you that can rival Me in >vision or insight? Where is he to be found that dareth to claim to be My >equal in utterance or wisdom? No, by My Lord, the All-Merciful! All on the >earth shall pass away;l and this is the face of your Lord, the Almighty, the >Well-Beloved. > >We have decreed, O people, that the highest and last end of all learning be >the recognition of Him Who is the Object of all knowledge; and yet, behold >how ye have allowed your learning to shut you out, as by a veil, from Him >Who is the Day Spring of this Light, through Whom every hidden thing hath >been revealed. Could ye but discover the source whence the splendor of this >utterance is diffused, ye would cast away the peoples of the world and all >that they possess, and would draw nigh unto this most blessed Seat of glory. > >Behold, how the divers peoples and kindreds of the earth have been waiting >for the coming of the Promised One. No sooner had He, Who is the Sun of >Truth, been made manifest, than, lo, all turned away from Him, except them >whom God was pleased to guide. We dare not, in this Day, lift the veil that >concealeth the exalted station which every true believer can attain, for the >joy which such a revelation must provoke might well cause a few to faint >away and die. > >This is the Day in which God's most excellent favors have been poured out >upon men, the Day in which His most mighty grace hath been infused into all >created things. It is incumbent upon all the peoples of the world to >reconcile their differences, and, with perfect unity and peace, abide >beneath the shadow ot the Tree of His care and loving-kindness. It behoveth >them to cleave to whatsoever will, in this Day, be conducive to the >exaltation of their stations, and to the promotion of their best interests. >Happy are those whom the all-glorious Pen was moved to remember, and >blessed are those men whose names, by virtue of Our inscrutable decree, We >have preferred to conceal. > >Beseech ye the one true God to grant that all men may be graciously assisted >to fulfil that which is acceptable in Our sight. Soon will the present-day >order be rolled up, and a new one spread out in its stead. Verily, thy Lord >speaketh the truth, and is the Knower of things unseen. >GLEANINGS FROM THE WRITINGS OF BAHA'U'LLAH, pg. 7 > >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message ><6gjgj3$6t5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:36 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 9:02 AM Subject: Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 >Dear Robert, >Your response entails much emotional bravura....but addresses none of >the admitedly lengthy evidence I gave to support the historic Christian >viewpoint. You ask me if I wanted to find out about Jesus if I would go >to the Old Testament to find out about Him. If you really read my posts >you know that one can well find Him there. I quoted from Isaiah and the >Psalms as only two of many examples. Jesus, as you must well know, >supported all of His claims from the Old Testament and considered His >ministry and Mission to be a fulfillment of it. My post demonstrated How >He is shown to have done so in ways that preclude Baha'i claims from >being true and show that the Jews rejected Him DESPITE the definitive >evidence within their own Scriptures. >Again, you have addressed none of the salient points. The only way we >can "make the same mistake as the Jews" is to literally make the same >mistake. To miss accepting Jesus Christ of Nazareth for who he claimed >to be, God the Son, Messiah and Savior who could ONLY be God, according >to Scripture (Old Testament!). > >In Christ, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:37 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: On Guru and Sikh ver 3.1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 6:31 PM Subject: Re: On Guru and Sikh ver 3.1 >Dear brother Singh, M.D. > >Speaking for myself, I wish to thank you for your posting. I understand some >of what you have written and agree with much as well. > >One area where there may be divergence concerns the Baha'i concept of >history, and of the path of humankind towards its creator. It is this >possible difference I wish to discuss with you, in the hope that I might >learn more of your beliefs. > >Baha'u'llah teachs that God has created humanity to know and to love God. >However, He says that it is not possible to do these without the >intervention of God. At periodic intervals, God infuses the universe with >new knowledge, sending a Manifestation of His Glory and Divine Love to live >amongst us. These Holy Beings reinvigorate Gods Religion with spirituality, >and add to the store of knowledge needed by humanity to progress forward >toward ever higher levels of unity. He says that unity, in fact, is the >purpose and goal of "true religion". > >He says that these Holy Beings are perfect mirrors reflecting Gods >perfections and attributes to man, that they are in one sense one, and in >another, unique individuals. In one passage, he relates them to the days of >the week. Each one with a different name, each one appearing at a different >time, but there is but the one sun, returning to shine its rays that give us >life. > >He says, and these are of course my poor words, that humanity itself has a >cycle, a life, and that it corresponds to the life of an individual: >conception, birth, infancy, childhood, and finally adulthood. It is this >last stage of adulthood that humanity is entering now, according to >Baha'u'llah. A stage where, over a period of time of course, all of humanity >will become spiritually mature, will reflect all the perfections of God, and >be radiant beings. > >I particularly love this vision of beauty and hope, for it portends a time >when, to me, your hopes and aspirations will be realized, as well as those >of the Baha'is, and we will all become the true Sikhs you speak of, pure, >devoted, loving followers of the Light of God. > >Robert A. Little > >Y. A. Singh, M.D. wrote in message <35319420.FC91AB77@concentric.net>... >>A note from the author: >> >>I came across some exchanges on Sikh Religion between John >>Taylor, Mark Foster, and others, posted during 1996. I >>would like to offer this article to my Bahai brothers and >>sisters on the day of Baisakhi, as a brief guide to the Sikh >>faith. This is the day the Khalsa Panth was initiated. >> >>Please forgive me if this is an intrusion. I do this only >>because I saw that you believe in an open-minded examination >>of all faiths. "The shining spark of truth cometh forth >>only after the clash of differing opinions." -- Selections >>from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:40 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 10:03 AM Subject: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >In remembrance of Good Friday, the Martyrdom of Christ, here are some >quotations from the Baha'i Writings. >--------------------- > >Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the >whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, >however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its >evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now >manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have >uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the >arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by >the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening >power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent >Spirit. > We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor >of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered >from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the >unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty >God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner >sanctified. > Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between >man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself >to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered >in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness >that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, >every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it >is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face >beaming with light, hath turned towards Him. >(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, pages 85-86) > >When Christ was crucified and left this world, He had only eleven >disciples and a very few followers; but as He served the Cause of >truth, look today at the result of His life's work! He has illumined >the world, and given life to dead humanity. After His ascension >little by little His Cause grew, the souls of His followers became >more and more luminous, and the exquisite perfume of their saintly >lives spread on all sides. >(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, page 169) > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:41 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Martha Ann & George Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, April 10, 1998 2:44 PM Subject: Re: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >Roger Reini wrote: >[snip] >> When Christ was crucified and left this world, He had only eleven >> disciples and a very few followers; [snip] > >Roger: You said, "very few followers". I woud be interested to >have you: >1. Give a "ballpark" estimate as to the number of followers. >(for example: Less than 100, More than 100 but less than 300, >or Less than 1,000 etc.) >2. What is your idea of the criteria for a follower? >3. Give some idea of the source of your information. > >If this request irritates you in any way, >or if you feel that you should not reveal this information, >please disreguard this request. > >George ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:42 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Massoud Ajami Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,misc.misc Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >X-no-archive: yes > >From Abir Majid >Organization [poster's organization not specified] >Date Fri, 10 Apr 1998 11:54:06 -0500 >Newsgroups alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,misc.misc >Message-ID <352E4EAE.66B3@geocities.com> >References 1 2 > > >Massoud Ajami wrote: >>> How Bahai believe that they are the extension of Islam and yet believe >>> that Jesus Christ was crucified? That is the direct contradition to the >>> Quran that you all HAVE to believe. > >>Dear brother Massoud, Salam: >> >>I can understand why most Muslims believe that Jesus (pbuH) was not >>crucified, but was rather raised to heaven and someone else who looked >>like Him was crucified instead. This comes from reading verses 4:157 and >>4:158: >> >>That they said "we killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of >>Allah", But they killed him not, nor crucified Him, but so it was made >>to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts with >>no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed >>Him not. Nay, Allah raised Him up unto Himself; and Allah is exalted in >>power, Wise. >> Qur'an 4:157-158 >> >>However, if we read the whole Qur'an, we find out that there are other >>verses which indicate that He (Jesus) did actually die, and He is to >>return (be raised up) again as a sign of the Day of Judgment. For >>example, we can see this from these verses: >> >>And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the >>day I am raised to life. >> Qur'an 19:33 >> >>(in this verse, it seems that He dies first, then He is raised to life) >> >>I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That >>serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long >>as I was among them, but when Thou *didst cause me to die*, Thou wert >the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things. >> Qur'an 5:117 >> >>And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate* the period of your >>stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those >>who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve >>to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will >>decide between you concerning that in which you differed. >> Qur'an 3:55 >> >>* the verb in Arabic (mutawafeeka) means will cause You to die. So if He >>did not die on the cross, how and when and where did He die? If God was >>going to make Him die anyway, why not on the cross? >> >Salam and peace with you, > >Of course we can interprate any which way you want, but I don't believe >that you should trust Quran with all these contradictions. Once it say Jesus >died and then it say he didn't. > >Now lets see the word "mutawaffeeka" which you (or whoever) translated with >two verbs in translation, while the words itself is a noun. It coms from the >root "vafaya" (a lafeefe maghroon, I may add) which being in the bab >"taffaol," and you know all of these, means "to get you; to grab you; or in >Persian form 'madad you'," which has nothing to do with Jesus dieing. > >> >> >> >>So maybe the meaning of verses 4:157-158 is that, the Jews thought that >>they got rid of the new religion by instigating the death of Jesus, but >>they did not succeed, because even though His body died on the cross, >>His Spirit and His religion remained alive. And God knows best. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:42 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Source of statement (was Re: year 2001) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 1:17 AM Subject: Source of statement (was Re: year 2001) >Roger Reini asked me where I read that Shoghi said that the Arc might be >destroyed in the coming calamity. I spent many hours looking for that >statement, since Shoghi Effendi was a prolific writer, and much was written >about him also. I found this in the notes by Elmer and Gladys Beasly, written >concerning their visit to Shoghi in 1957. I'm pretty sure I've seen the >statement elsewhere also. since I have read very few of the pilgrim notes and >this was, to my recollection, the first time I read the Beasly account. >However, having spent over eight hours looking for the statement, I decided I >will go with this as the source for the moment being, and give you the other >source later, if I should run across it again. Andree (excerpt from Beasly >notes is below) `There will always be evil but it will be more restricted. >Man will always have the opportunity to use his will. The next Prophet will >be persecuted and will bring His own Book and laws. There will always be >tests.' `We are approaching the darkest [hour] before dawn. No one knows when >this can happen.but anytime. It will come fast. Anything that happens, even >to the destruction of the Temples and Shrines, will be for the good of the >Faith.' `The Prophets did not mind Their suffering in this world for They >knew Their reward was greater in the next world.' `God always gives us our >just dues, if not in this world, then in the next, but suffering is our >greatest development. It gives us the greatest chance to develop our greatest >opportunity the life God gave us to live.' > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:43 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Who shall see God? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: genunl@usit.net Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 11, 1998 6:32 AM Subject: Re: Who shall see God? >rreini@wwnet.net (Roger Reini) wrote: > >>On Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:56:16 -0500, >>twenty-four.fighting.chickens@mindspring.com wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:54:55 GMT, Bishop Jeff Silver wrote: >>> >>>:We do not need any obscure sanscrit terms to describe sin! >>>:God spoke of His laws, not of some obscure "innate nature of things" >>> >>>God did not speak of any laws. Men wrote claiming that God spoke of >>>laws, but there is no evidence that God has endorsed these writings. >>> >> >>How can you say such a thing? Do you question the validity of the >>Torah, the Gospel, the Qur'an, the Baha'i Writings, etc.? >> >>Whenever God has revealed a new Book to guide humanity, He (through >>His mouthpieces, the Manifestations of God) has always provided laws >>for His servants to abide by. Some Books (notably the Torah and >>Qur'an) had more laws than others, but none called for anarchy. >> >>Followups set. >> >> >>Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >>https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ > >As there are waters above and waters below, there are the laws and >principles of God and those of mankind. Without law, there is no >order. There is an order established for the development of mankind >established by the law of God. As the laws of physics exists, so also >the spiritual laws of God. A law is a "way;" a principle to be >followed in order to experience a desired result. > >By the way, the pure of heart see God as He truly is; not according to >false religious doctrine. Those of the Spirit of God see by the eyes >of understanding which they have been given by the Living God. > >DW Suiter ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:44 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 12, 1998 12:16 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >Muhammad, may my soul be a sacrifice to His Holy Name, fulfilled certain >prophecies found in the Book. However, He had no need of prophecies, for He >was His own proof, as was Christ before Him, and Moses. Indeed, prophecies >led the people of Israel to deny their Lord, their Messiah, for He was not >what they wanted. The Book was a cloud for them, and obscured the Light of >God. So today, there are those who use the Book to deny God. In fact, they >turn against the people of the Book. What did his Holiness Muhammad tell us >to do to the people of the Book? > >So today, the Lord of Hosts is His own proof. He needs not the prophecies of >the Book, He is His own proof. Those with eyes that see, and ears that hear, >will see Him. There were those in the past who used the Book to deny their >Lord, Jesus, and after Him, His Holiness Muhammad. They are doing it today. >If your heart is pure, you will smell the fragrances of God wafting to you >from the Mountain of God, from Carmel. > >Robert A. Little > >Abir Majid wrote in message <35312BB7.5889@geocities.com>... >>Kavosh Soltani wrote: >> >>> The holy Prophet(SAAW) said ..: >>> >>> "There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and >>> each one of them will pronounce to the world that he >>> is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the >>> Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after me." >>> (Abu Dawood, Tirmizi) > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:44 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Smith Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 6:46 AM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor > >> .................... > >>If your heart is pure, > > >That is ABSOLUTELY the ONLY thing that is sufficient and necessary. > > >> you will smell the fragrances of God wafting to you >>from the Mountain of God, from Carmel. > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:45 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 4:05 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor > >Robert Little wrote in message <6grhqi$id7$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>Muhammad, may my soul be a sacrifice to His Holy Name, fulfilled certain > >I do not believe Muslims should regard Muhammed as Holy. > >Omar > >>prophecies found in the Book. However, He had no need of prophecies, for He >>was His own proof, as was Christ before Him, and Moses. Indeed, prophecies >>led the people of Israel to deny their Lord, their Messiah, for He was not >>what they wanted. The Book was a cloud for them, and obscured the Light of >>God. So today, there are those who use the Book to deny God. In fact, they >>turn against the people of the Book. What did his Holiness Muhammad tell us >>to do to the people of the Book? >> >>So today, the Lord of Hosts is His own proof. He needs not the prophecies >of >>the Book, He is His own proof. Those with eyes that see, and ears that >hear, >>will see Him. There were those in the past who used the Book to deny their >>Lord, Jesus, and after Him, His Holiness Muhammad. They are doing it today. >>If your heart is pure, you will smell the fragrances of God wafting to you >>from the Mountain of God, from Carmel. >> >>Robert A. Little >> >>Abir Majid wrote in message <35312BB7.5889@geocities.com>... >>>Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> >>>> The holy Prophet(SAAW) said ..: >>>> >>>> "There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and >>>> each one of them will pronounce to the world that he >>>> is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the >>>> Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after me." >>>> (Abu Dawood, Tirmizi) >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:45 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mike Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai To: abirm@geocities.com Date: Monday, April 13, 1998 11:55 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >How do you know that there ever was a prophet or that there ever will? >Just by believing humans and then trying to act logical is such a farce! >Try reading philosophy and logic and the rest may fall in place, >hopefully. > >Mike Armstrong > >Abir Majid wrote: > >> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >> >> > The holy Prophet(SAAW) said ..: >> > >> > "There will arise thirty impostors in my Ummah and >> > each one of them will pronounce to the world that he >> > is a prophet, but I am the last in the line of the >> > Prophets of God and no Prophet will come after me." >> > (Abu Dawood, Tirmizi) >> > >> >> Let’s suppose there are two impostors or one hundred. For the word >> impostor to have a meaning, there needs to be a true One. So the >> question is : >> >> How do you propose to recognize the real "Sahib’ul Zaman" (Lord of the >> Age)? >> >> -- >> >> Abir Majid >> https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >> https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >> email: abirm@geocities.com > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 6:51 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: 19 artist@coinet.com davecrnll@aol.com farmid@clinicomp.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com jwalker@ozdocs.net.au laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com You have a total of: 19 users. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:19 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Cc: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com Mark, Thanks again for the tip on makelist. I've set up a list on makelist.com. You and I are the only two subscribers at the moment in order to test it as you suggested. The interface does seem more sophisticated than coollist and offers more options. Most importantly, that anyone can post to it not merely subscribers. That would allow people posting to talk.religion.misc or alt.religion.bahai to cc the list. Anyone else who'd like to be in on the experiment can subscribe via the web page at www.makelist.com or by sending an email (another good feature) to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Messages will also be archived at https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Cc: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: MakeList! New List bahai-faith@makelist.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: MakeList! Staff To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: MakeList! New List bahai-faith@makelist.com > >Dear List Owner: > >You have successfully created a new mailing list; the list address is > > bahai-faith@makelist.com > >Sending an e-mail message to this address will distribute it to >all of its subscribers. > >An archive of messages sent to this mailing list is available at > > https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > >There are three ways to join the mailing list: > >1. You manually add subscribers using the list owner Web interface at > https://www.findmail.com/webmlm > >2. Subscribers add themselves by entering their e-mail addresses into > the Web subscription form that you can find on the list archive. > >3. Subscribers send e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >If you have set up the list to require approval for new subscribers, >you will receive such approval requests in your mail. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:38 AM Subject: New list: bahai-faith@makelist.com ----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Cc: bahai-faith at coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:19 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] bahai-faith@makelist.com >Mark, > >Thanks again for the tip on makelist. > >I've set up a list on makelist.com. You and I are the only two >subscribers at the moment in order to test it as you suggested. >The interface does seem more sophisticated than coollist and >offers more options. Most importantly, that anyone can post to >it not merely subscribers. That would allow people posting to >talk.religion.misc or alt.religion.bahai to cc the list. > >Anyone else who'd like to be in on the experiment can >subscribe via the web page at www.makelist.com or by sending >an email (another good feature) to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >Messages will also be archived at > >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com >(Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, >send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:43 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 10:13 AM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor > >John Smith wrote in message <6gu8tb$42r$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... >>Now you have REALLY confused me. Who's side are you on ? :) >> >>Stephen M. Dodd wrote in message <6gtro3$o4n$1@bashir.peak.org>... >>> >>>Robert Little wrote in message <6grhqi$id7$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>>>Muhammad, may my soul be a sacrifice to His Holy Name, fulfilled certain >>> >>>I do not believe Muslims should regard Muhammed as Holy. >>> >>>Omar >>> > > >It is more important to have correct knowledge of the nature of God and man >than to select sides. We should all be on the same side. > >Only God is holy. Prophets are just men. > >Omar > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:43 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Jochen Katz Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 3:36 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >In article <6gv98r$5hk$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, >"Robert Little" writes: > >> How many philosophers have civilizations based on their philosophies? >> >> If you scratch at the base of a civilization, you find a Manifestation of >> God, supporting it with His Revelation. > >What is the "manifestation of God" at the base of the Chinese civilization? >One of the oldest and most enduring of all civilizations, mind you. > >> God, through His Manifestations, > >Could you tell me what you mean by "manifestation of God"? >That is a very unIslamic term. You seem to claim to be a Muslim, >but where in the Qur'an do you find manifestations of God? > >> Muslims gave us the decimal system, > >They spread it to Europe, but it was invented by the Hindus in >India. More details can be found at > >https://answering-islam.org/Science/math.html > >> and paper, > >and paper was invented in China. > >> and all the lost >> Greek sciences Christians had burned. > >Nonesense. Where is your proof? You might want to have a look >at this article: https://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html > >> Muslims gave us the nation. > >There were no nations before Islam came? >Or what do you mean by that statement? >I don't even have a clue what you mean. Most of the above >claims are meaningful but wrong. This one doesn't even >make sense when "nation" is taken in its natural meaning. >What made the Arab empire more a "nation" than the one >of Alexander the Great, or the Roman empire or the >Israelite nation under David, or the Chinese or the ... > >Sincerely, > >Jochen Katz > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:44 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:17 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >Dear Jochen Katz: > >You have raised more questions than I have answers, most probably. Most >probably, you are more knowledgable than I as well, but I will attempt to >answer. > >Jochen Katz wrote in message <6h0dsn$plu@smash.gatech.edu>... >>In article <6gv98r$5hk$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, >>"Robert Little" writes: >> >>> How many philosophers have civilizations based on their philosophies? >>> >>> If you scratch at the base of a civilization, you find a Manifestation of >>> God, supporting it with His Revelation. >> >>What is the "manifestation of God" at the base of the Chinese civilization? >>One of the oldest and most enduring of all civilizations, mind you. >> > >The very age of that civilization (China) makes it difficult to trace its >roots. The same is true of India, which is Hindu. Hinduism is so ancient >that all historical evidence of its reputed Founder is lost in the mists of >time. While I am unable to factually support, in the case of these two >civilizations, my earlier claim that civilization is the result of Divine >Religion, I believe that there exists plentiful evidence to support it in >those civilizations where we do have records. >>> God, through His Manifestations, >> >>Could you tell me what you mean by "manifestation of God"? >>That is a very unIslamic term. You seem to claim to be a Muslim, >>but where in the Qur'an do you find manifestations of God? > > >I made no claim to be a Muslim. I am a follower of Baha'u'llah, a Baha'i. As >such, I believe in the divine origin of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and >others. I believe that Religion is progressive in nature, and that each of >these Beings revealed a chapter in the Book. They were not limited in their >knowledge, but rather taught what humanity needed and could comprehend at >the time of their appearance, just as teachers do in the process of formal >education. I investigated the claim of Baha'u'llah and have decided that He >is the latest, that His Teachings are divine in origin, and have the purpose >of spiritually uniting the planet and its peoples in a unified and diverse >society based upon justice. Yes, I know, big claim. >> >>> Muslims gave us the decimal system, >> >>They spread it to Europe, but it was invented by the Hindus in >>India. More details can be found at > > >I said that Muslims gave us the decimal system. I made no claim as to its >invention. Muslims also gave us perspective in painting (Spain, the Moors). >They gave us the foundation of our legal system, and they gave us the >nation. That word, the concept has existed for a very long time, but up to >the time of His Holiness Muhammad, civilization was based on a more >primitive type of society, the city-state. The Koran gave the world the >legal and spiritual concepts and teachings which produced a nation, the >first of its kind, and the pregenitor for all those modern nations that came >later. > >> >>https://answering-islam.org/Science/math.html >> >>> and paper, >> >>and paper was invented in China. > > >Again, I said that Islam gave us paper. I am aware that Buddhists originated >it. The west received it from Islam. >> >>> and all the lost >>> Greek sciences Christians had burned. > > >You don't believe that Christians burned the ancient libraries? > >> >>Nonesense. Where is your proof? You might want to have a look >>at this article: https://www.Christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html >> >>> Muslims gave us the nation. >> >>There were no nations before Islam came? >>Or what do you mean by that statement? >>I don't even have a clue what you mean. Most of the above >>claims are meaningful but wrong. This one doesn't even >>make sense when "nation" is taken in its natural meaning. >>What made the Arab empire more a "nation" than the one >>of Alexander the Great, or the Roman empire or the >>Israelite nation under David, or the Chinese or the ... > > >That is correct, there were no nations, in the sense that "nation" is >understood today, before Islam. >The very name "Rome" suggests the level of society - city-state. > >Islam was not an empire. All Muslims were citizens, not subjects. They had >specific legal rights and responsibilities, guaranteed by the Holy Koran. >Additionally, people of the Book (Christians and Jews) were guaranteed >complete and total freedom to practice their Faiths without hinderance. >Muslims respected this up until the Crusades, after which "pressure" was >brought to bear. > >If I make a statement that challenges your beliefs, does that make it wrong? >If I see history, and the world differently than you, does that mean I am in >error? Is there no room for a plurality of viewpoints in your world? Well, a >lot of questions. > >I believe in your sincerity, and do not mind if you demonstrate that >something I have said is factually incorrect, or otherwise in error. Just >the opposite. Prove me wrong, and I am then more knowledgable. > >Respectfully, > >Robert A. Little >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Jochen Katz >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:44 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 4:11 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 07:13:38 -0700, "Stephen M. Dodd" > wrote: > >> >>John Smith wrote in message <6gu8tb$42r$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... >>>Now you have REALLY confused me. Who's side are you on ? :) >>> >>>Stephen M. Dodd wrote in message <6gtro3$o4n$1@bashir.peak.org>... >>>> >>>>Robert Little wrote in message <6grhqi$id7$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>>>>Muhammad, may my soul be a sacrifice to His Holy Name, fulfilled certain >>>> >>>>I do not believe Muslims should regard Muhammed as Holy. >>>> >>>>Omar >>>> >> >> >>It is more important to have correct knowledge of the nature of God and man >>than to select sides. We should all be on the same side. > >Agreed, for God is One. To follow His Faith means that we who follow >Him are One, or should be One. > >> >>Only God is holy. Prophets are just men. > >You're echoing what His Holiness Christ said: "Why callest thou Me >good? There is no one good except the Father" (that's not an exact >quote of the Bible, but I believe it's close). > >And it's true: in one sense, the Prophets and Manifestations of God >are just men. But in another sense, They are more than ordinary men. >Their spiritual station lies in between God and humanity, and this >enables Them to convey the Word of God to His creation. > >If anyone is interested in learning more about this from a Baha'i >perspective, I'm willing to post relevant quotes from the Baha'i >writings in alt.religion.bahai. > > >> >>Omar >> >> > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:44 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 10:14 AM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) > >John Smith wrote in message <6gu98e$4vl$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... >>Omar can you SHUT UP for a second and let the elders speak uninterrupted >for >>a while ? >> >>Stephen M. Dodd wrote in message <6gschq$ish$1@bashir.peak.org>... > > >My posts are generally very small. > >Omar > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:45 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Smith Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 5:01 PM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >But enough to speed-break ANY developing idea... > >> >>John Smith wrote in message <6gu98e$4vl$1@plug.news.pipex.net>... >>>Omar can you SHUT UP for a second and let the elders speak uninterrupted >>for >>>a while ? >>> >>>Stephen M. Dodd wrote in message <6gschq$ish$1@bashir.peak.org>... >> >> >>My posts are generally very small. >> >>Omar >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:46 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:18 PM Subject: Da'wa to bahais >Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and I >am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes to >help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin Afrashteh. > >There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. > >It is addressed as : > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > >Please contact me at afrashteh@geocities.com if you are ready to >commit yourself to this wondrous cause. > >The efforts have already born fruit directly in several bahais converting to >Islam. In addition to that, the site has been very effective judging from the >number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim who have emailed me thanking >me (all thanks go to Allah swt) and saying how their bahai "friends" had >misled them and confused them. 2 of these former bahais are now actively doing >da'wa to bahais including one very recently who was active in >soc.religion.bahai. Also several of these brothers and sisters who were misled >by their so-called bahai "friends" and "fiances" (now ex-fiances) wish to help >out. Will you also not join in this jihad? > >Peace. > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:47 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:18 PM Subject: Da'wa to bahais >Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and I >am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes to >help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin Afrashteh. > >There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. > >It is addressed as : > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > >Please contact me at afrashteh@geocities.com if you are ready to >commit yourself to this wondrous cause. > >The efforts have already born fruit directly in several bahais converting to >Islam. In addition to that, the site has been very effective judging from the >number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim who have emailed me thanking >me (all thanks go to Allah swt) and saying how their bahai "friends" had >misled them and confused them. 2 of these former bahais are now actively doing >da'wa to bahais including one very recently who was active in >soc.religion.bahai. Also several of these brothers and sisters who were misled >by their so-called bahai "friends" and "fiances" (now ex-fiances) wish to help >out. Will you also not join in this jihad? > >Peace. > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:47 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Abir Majid Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.islam Cc: Baha'i Teachers Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 2:05 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to bahais >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca (aka nokhodchi) wrote: >> Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Peace and God's mercy be upon all > >> Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >> century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >> the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > >Two things dear Afshin: > >1. The Baha'i Faith is not a sect of Islam even though it has its >origins in Islam like Christianity has its origins in Judaism. You may >want to check fatwas(decrees) by Al-Azhar since early this century >(unless you don't place much importance on Sunni authority that is). > >2. A week ago I was at the university library looking at a book by the >Al-Ash'ari (may good bless his soul) written in the fourth Islamic >century with the title: Maqalat Al-Islamiyeen wa'Kh'tilaf al-Mussaleen >(The Treatise of Muslims and the Differences among the Prayerful/ >worshippers). It's about 600 pages long, discussing the different ways >of the differing factions and sects as early as then. Sectarianism and >factions started right after the Prophet's death and it has been on the >increase ever since. These differences and this hatred have resulted in >rivers of blood in countless wars that raged and still rage today. So I >wonder what you mean by "sects of Islam were eliminated in the past" !! > >Narrated AbuHurayrah: >The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: The Jews were split up into >seventy-one or seventy-two sects; and the Christians were split up into >seventy one or seventy-two sects; and my community will be split up into >seventy-three sects. >Kitabul Sunna , Sunan Abu-Dawud (partial collection)[Book 40, Number >4579: ] > >"My people will be divided into 73 sects ... Everyone will go to hell, >except one ... the religion which is professed by me and my companions." >(Mishkat Vol. I Chapter 6:2). > >> ... the site has been very effective judging from the >> number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim ... > >You have been demonstrating in the last few posts your new alliance with >non-Muslims. I thought that Muslims weren’t too crazy about >missionaries, but I guess I was wrong. > >[...] >> .... Will you also not join in this jihad? > >For your information dear Afshin (it seems that you forget easily), the >Tree of the Cause of God, has been nourished by the blood of the >martyrs. Every single time the tide of hatred and persecution came, It >grew taller and more verdant, until It emerged from obscurity and is now >known throughout the planet. Your efforts to help us grow, won’t go >unnoticed in the sight of God. > >"This, O my Beloved, is my face which I have offered up for Thy face, >and this is my spirit which I have sacrificed for Thy spirit, and this >is my blood that seetheth in my veins, in its longing to be shed for >love of Thee and in Thy path." > From a prayer by Baha’u’llah > >"But for the troubles that touch me in Thy path, O my God, how else >could my heart rejoice in Thy days; and were it not for the blood which >is shed for love of Thee, what else could tinge the faces of Thy chosen >ones before the eyes of Thy creatures? I swear by Thy might! The >ornament that adorneth the countenance of Thy dear ones is the blood >which, in their love for Thee, floweth out of their foreheads over their >faces." > From a prayer by Baha’u’llah > >>Peace. >I hope it means something to you dear Afshin >-- >------------------------------------------------ >Abir Majid >https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >e-mail: abirm@geocities.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:47 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 3:17 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to bahais >Sir: > >You are free to post in this group, and your input is of course welcome. I >would only ask of you that if you do enter here, please demonstrate that >respect and courtesy which His Holiness Muhammad requires of you, and of us >all. Specifically, I refer to your spelling of the name of this Faith. The >correct spelling is "Baha'i" (actually, there is an accent on the final "a", >and the "i", but most computer keyboards are incapable of that). >Additionally, "Baha'u'llah" is the proper spelling of the Author of this >Dispensation. > >I thank you in advance for your anticipated respect. > >I have included a portion of the Tablet of Ahmad, revealed by Baha'u'llah. >Those with a pure heart will discern in it the fragrances of God. >========================================================================== >Say: O people be obedient to the ordinances of God, which have been >enjoined in the Bayan by the Glorious, the Wise One. Verily He is the King >of the Messengers and His Book is the Mother Book did ye but know. > >Thus doth the Nightingale utter His call unto you from this prison. He hath >but to deliver this clear message. Whosever desireth, let him turn aside >from this counsel and whosoever desireth let him choose the path to his >Lord. > >O people, if ye deny these verses, by what proof have ye believed in God? >Produce it, O assemblage of false ones. > >Nay, by the one in Whose hand is my soul, they are not, and never shall be >able to do this, even should they combine to assist one another. > >O Ahmad! Forget not My bounties while I am absent. Remember My days during >thy days, and My banishment in this remote prison. And be thou so steadfast >in My love that thy heart shall not waver, even if the swords of the enemies >rain blows upon thee and all the heavens and the earth arise against thee. > >Be thou as a flame of fire to my enemies and a river of life eternal to My >loved ones, and be not of those who doubt. > >And if thou are overtaken by affliction in My path, or degradation for My >sake, be not thou troubled thereby. > >Rely upon God, thy God and the Lord of thy fathers. For the people are >wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with >their own eyes or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found >them, as thou also dost witness. > >Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts >and kept them from the path of God, the Exalted, the Great. > >Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who turns away from this Beauty >hath also turned away from the Messengers of the past and showeth pride >towards God from all eternity to all eternity. >======================================================================== > >Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Robert A. Little >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message ><6gvune$6qt$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, >> >>Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and >I >>am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes >to >>help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin >Afrashteh. >> >>There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. >> >>It is addressed as : >> >>https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >> >>Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >>century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >>the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. >> >>Please contact me at afrashteh@geocities.com if you are ready to >>commit yourself to this wondrous cause. >> >>The efforts have already born fruit directly in several bahais converting >to >>Islam. In addition to that, the site has been very effective judging from >the >>number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim who have emailed me >thanking >>me (all thanks go to Allah swt) and saying how their bahai "friends" had >>misled them and confused them. 2 of these former bahais are now actively >doing >>da'wa to bahais including one very recently who was active in >>soc.religion.bahai. Also several of these brothers and sisters who were >misled >>by their so-called bahai "friends" and "fiances" (now ex-fiances) wish to >help >>out. Will you also not join in this jihad? >> >>Peace. >> >> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:48 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to Baha'is Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to Baha'is >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >>Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Wa alaykuma Salaam. > >>Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and I >>am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. . . . >[snip] >> >>Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >>century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >>the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > >I am saddened to read of this effort of a person proclaiming faith >in God (Who has the most excellent Names) against another religion. >These efforts unfortunately echo the declared policy of the Iranian >government to eliminate the Baha'i Faith, a policy widely condemned as >"cultural genocide." Moreover, they follow the sad historical pattern >of older religions attacking younger ones, a phenomenon with which >Baha'is are very familiar, having endured same over the last century >and a half (and which Muslims also experienced early in the history of >Islam). > >The ultimate futility of such efforts as Afshin's "dawa to Baha'is" can >be seen only in the fullness of time. In the meantime the Friends will >endure, pray, teach, and try to put into practice the Teachings of the >One Whom we believe to be the Manifestation of God for this Day. > >[snip] >>The efforts have already born fruit directly in several bahais converting to >>Islam. . . . > >It is not news that people "change religion," especially in this time >of some turmoil and change in the world. There are certainly many of >Muslim background who have declared their belief that Baha'u'llah is >the Manifestation promised by God for this Day. Yet they will not be >put on a web site, nor will they or any Baha'i participate in any kind >of anti-Muslim effort, as that would be against Baha'i teachings -- and >anyway, we respect Islam. > >>... In addition to that, the site has been very effective judging from the >>number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim who have emailed me thanking >>me (all thanks go to Allah swt) and saying how their bahai "friends" had >>misled them and confused them. 2 of these former bahais are now actively doing >>da'wa to bahais including one very recently who was active in >>soc.religion.bahai. Also several of these brothers and sisters who were misled >>by their so-called bahai "friends" and "fiances" (now ex-fiances) wish to help >>out. . . . > >It is definitely not the purpose of the Baha'i religion to mislead, but >rather to encourage independent investigation of truth. > >>... Will you also not join in this jihad? > >A jihad, as I understand the term, is a holy war (of defensive nature). >How can a declared effort to "eliminate" another religion be holy in >any meaningful sense of the term? > >> Peace. > >I wish you peace also. Yet I have an honest question about your >perhaps unintentional juxtaposition of "peace" (salaam) with "holy war" >(jihad) at the end of your message. What does this say? > >DZO > >"This is the changeless Faith of God, eternal in the past, >eternal in the future." - Baha'u'llah ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:48 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 4:11 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to bahais >On Tue, 14 Apr 1998 10:18:06 -0600, afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca >wrote: > >>Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > >Who can disagree with this? > >> >>Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and I >>am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes to >>help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin Afrashteh. > >Please define the term "da'wa" for me. > >> >>There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. >> >>It is addressed as : >> >>https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >> >>Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >>century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >>the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > >IMHO, language such as this does not promote true understanding and >reasoned discussion among peoples. > >Besides, the Baha'i Faith is not and never has been a sect of Islam. > >Followups set out of SCI. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:48 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mehram Maleki Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Cc: sci-poster@handel.sun.com Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 6:52 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to bahais >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >> >> Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, >> >> Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and I >> am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes to >> help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin Afrashteh. >> >> There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. >> >> It is addressed as : >> >> https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm >> >> Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >> century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >> the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. >> [...] > >Your name appeared as one of those who signed for >formation of a Baha'i newsgroup a while back. You >have always been active in SCI in relation to >issues concerning the Baha'is. Now you're faking >for us to be a Moslem trying to "eliminate" Baha'ism? >Who're you trying to fool? > >Take your "war", whoever's side you're on, to another >newsgroup and don't come back. > >Maleki > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:49 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Abir Majid Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,misc.misc Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:53 PM Subject: Re: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >Massoud Ajami wrote: >> abirm wrote: >> >* the verb in Arabic (mutawafeeka) means will cause You to die. So if He >> >did not die on the cross, how and when and where did He die? If God was >> >going to make Him die anyway, why not on the cross? >> > >> Salam and peace with you, > >and with you dear friend. > >> >> Of course we can interprate any which way you want, but I don't believe >> that you should trust Quran with all these contradictions. Once it say Jesus >> died and then it say he didn't. > >I don't see any contradictions in the Holy Qur'an and I trust it >completely. > >> >> Now lets see the word "mutawaffeeka" which you (or whoever) translated with >> two verbs in translation, while the words itself is a noun. ... > >Actually, this was Shakir's translation of the Qur'an. But even if you >read other translations which might use other words, you'll find that >all translators used verbs. > >The word "mutawafee" is a noun which means dead (like marhoom), but the >"ka" at the end, turns the word into a verb [like "inni sa'iluka" (I ask >of you), "inni ja'iluka" (I make you do /or become), ...etc.] > >> It coms from the >> root "vafaya" (a lafeefe maghroon, I may add) which being in the bab >> "taffaol," and you know all of these, means "to get you; to grab you; or in >> Persian form 'madad you'," which has nothing to do with Jesus dieing. > >There is an Arabic dictionary online (www.sakhr.com). If you search for >"mutawafee", the result is "ra' hil , May'it" both of which mean dead. >-- >------------------------------------------------ >Abir Majid >https://members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >e-mail: abirm@geocities.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:49 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Massoud Ajami Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,misc.misc Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 4:53 PM Subject: Re: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >X-no-archive: yes >In article <35339471.3FF4@geocities.com> Abir Majid writes: >>From: Abir Majid >>Subject: Re: Remembering the Martyrdom of Christ >>Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1998 11:53:05 -0500 > >>Massoud Ajami wrote: >>> abirm wrote: >>> >* the verb in Arabic (mutawafeeka) means will cause You to die. So if He >>> >did not die on the cross, how and when and where did He die? If God was >>> >going to make Him die anyway, why not on the cross? >>> > >>> Salam and peace with you, > >>and with you dear friend. > >>> >>> Of course we can interprate any which way you want, but I don't believe >>> that you should trust Quran with all these contradictions. Once it say Jesus >>> died and then it say he didn't. > >>I don't see any contradictions in the Holy Qur'an and I trust it >>completely. > >So which one it is? Is Jesus dead on the cross or not? > >>> >>> Now lets see the word "mutawaffeeka" which you (or whoever) translated with >>> two verbs in translation, while the words itself is a noun. ... > >>Actually, this was Shakir's translation of the Qur'an. But even if you >>read other translations which might use other words, you'll find that >>all translators used verbs. > >>The word "mutawafee" is a noun which means dead (like marhoom), but the >>"ka" at the end, turns the word into a verb [like "inni sa'iluka" (I ask >>of you), "inni ja'iluka" (I make you do /or become), ...etc.] > >Dead, dear friend, is a subject, but "mutawafee" is an object. For it to >mean "dead," it must be "mutawafaa." > >>> It coms from the >>> root "vafaya" (a lafeefe maghroon, I may add) which being in the bab >>> "taffaol," and you know all of these, means "to get you; to grab you; or in >>> Persian form 'madad you'," which has nothing to do with Jesus dieing. > >>There is an Arabic dictionary online (www.sakhr.com). If you search for >>"mutawafee", the result is "ra' hil , May'it" both of which mean dead. > >I am sure if one searches, the word "muta'alem" he/she would fine the >meaning of "taught one," and yet, we will shy the meaning for >"muta'alam." > >Peace. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:49 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Re(2): Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 2:56 PM Subject: Re(2): Heaven/hell, reincarnation, or what awaits us? >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote (in part): >> On point #2, there is a fundamental conceptual difference in the sense >> of afterlife as motion in the Baha'i Revelation as opposed to being >> (apparently) static states in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings. >> Here the Baha'i teachings seem a bit closer to the Hindu and Buddhist >> teachings of the soul in movement (although Baha'i teachings deny the >> possibility of a soul returning to an earthly body - we get only one >> chance at that). > >A quick addendum to my reply above to your comment that the Baha'i >teaching of progression towards God is different from the Biblical >teaching of the "victory finally won." Again, in my own understanding >(no one should conclude that my thoughts have any particular insight >but should remember that I'm learning too), the "victory" as this >Baha'i would understand it is 1) in moving closer to God, and 2) in the >proximity to God. I'm thinking of the mathematical limit case as an >example, where a curve can approach a value continuously, without ever >becoming it. Motion and change are ever present realities in life and >the universe; I don't find it surprising that that should be the case >for the soul after this earthly existence. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) John Noland wrote in message <82DF639AAB39F610.5D621D25243306F0.06CC2D8C6DE4BB46@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >>You and I disagree with what Abdul Baha's "answered question" 's >>rationale is that presumes an explanation for why the Resurrection is to >>be taken only symbolically. I say Abdul Baha argues its unreasonable >>impossibility according to Science and reason. You say he was only >>voicing the inaccurate outlook of others, (giving an example of what an >>unelightened person's response might be). If we carefully analyze the >>answered question and look at it in context (what immediately precedes >>and follows the remarks that you say Abdul was intending to express as >>that of being an unenlightened materialist's point of view), we see that >>your interpretation is definitively incorrect. >> >>Some Answered Questions pg 104, >>"...His (Jesus') disappearance under the earth for three days has an >>inner signification and is <<>> (wrong according to >>Scripture. It is an outward fact, regardless of other aspects of its >>reality. The implications are signifigant.). In the same way, His >>resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a >>spiritual and divine fact, <<>>(wrong according to >>Scriptures already shared with you and even those you yourself have >>cited); and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not >>material ascension. > >The context of a particular passage of a discussion (especially an informal one like this) >is not automatically determined by looking at the immediately previous material. It is >determined by the discussion in it's entirety. This particular discussion, in it's >original form is bound to the discussion of the virgin birth, pg. 87 of Some Answered >Questions, in which Abdul Baha said: > >In regard to this question, theologians and materialists disagree. The theologians believe >that..., but the materialists think this... >...The materialists believe that... In answer, the theologians say... >...The materialists insist upon this belief...The theologians say... > >This is the basis for my statements in my previous letters. I believe that a good deal of >our difficulty in discussing this issue is that we each have different ideas about certain >terminology. For example, when I think of a person as being a materialist, I'm thinking of >a person that doesn't believe in spirituality in any form, i.e., an atheist or a humanist. >I also don't believe you and I understand the terms symbolic and literal in quite the same >way. Baha'i sacred texts use symbolic in a somewhat technical sense consistent with its >strict dictionary definition: It refers to the use of sensory images to represent >intangible, non-sensory realities. (See the Abdu'l Baha's explanation in SAQ 83-86: >Outward Forms and Symbols Must Be Used to Convey Intellectual Conceptions.) In casual >speech, symbolic is rarely used nowadays to mean figurative depiction of non-corporeal >realities. Instead, it generally is used to label something as unreal, illusory, >imaginary, mythological, or fictitious. This is the manner in which you appear to >understand the term symbolic. Hence, when you read about the meaning of the Resurrection >in SAQ, you take this to mean that the Resurrection never happened, or that Baha'is don't >believe in the Resurrection, that we regard it as a myth, a fiction, a mere superstition. >This is emphatically NOT the case, as I attempted to demonstrate with my original letter. > >We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. With Christianity, >that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any dogma or doctrine associated with that >religion and search for truth directly from Scripture. If we come across anything in >Scripture that is contrary to science or is in some way supernatural, we are not to give >any special consideration to it. Again, this doesn't mean we should disregard it or that >we should deny it's actual occurrence. It means we should try and determine it's spiritual >significance. What was the purpose of the miracle? What was it meant to teach us? In >regarding these Baha'i teachings, I can see where you are coming from regarding this >passage from SAQ. It's not an unreasonable view that you propose but, I disagree with your >conclusions. > >As a bit of constructive criticism, Dale, The authoritative Writings of the Baha'i Faith >have much more to say on this subject than what you have alluded to here. You have >displayed a tendency (here and in your Fireside Papers) to isolate a passage from the >Writings and then declare it as the final word on Baha'i beliefs. This tends to make you >appear disingenuous in your "independent investigation of the truth". > >>Nevertheless, this observation is still beside the main point! For, as I >>had observed, even if Abdul Baha were NOT trying to prove the >>"impossibility" of the literal Resurrection, his interpreataion >>presented as a "fact" that it is only symbolic creates the objective >>double standard as observed. In other words, even though we disagree on >>just whether or not Abdul Baha argues literal "impossibility" for the >>Ressurection, and even if I were wrong in that he doesn't, still he >>argues that the Resurrection is "factually" symbolic only, in the face >>of literal acceptance of other miracles. When we consider context and >>intention of the original texts relating to the various miracles in >>Scripture (Virgin birth set beside Resurrection), we find that He has NO >>reasonable rationale by which he could accept the one as literal, and >>"factually" reject the other as being symbolic. If he is not arguing the >>symbolic Resurrection on the grounds of its Scientific impossibility, >>then he HAS NO rationale by which he would do so, especially while >>accepting the Virgin birth as literal. This is especially true since >>Scriptural passages dealing with the Resurrection of Christ are FAR MORE >>exhaustive in emphasizing the literal intent of the Resurrection than >>they are the Virgin birth. Thus, his interpretation becomes worse than >>arbitrary, it is against the contextual intention of Scripture when >>comparing references to the two miracles, and thereby creates a double >>standard when comparing his interpretation of the Resurrection as >>factually "symbolic"while accepting the Virgin birth as "literal". >>Your response seems to suggest that you don't get the point. If I >>accept the Virgin birth as literal, recognizing the literal intent of >>the passages relating to it as the basis for my interpretation, all is >>well and good. But then, if I turn right around and assert that the >>Resurrection of Jesus is Symbolic (assert it as being >>"factually"symbolic, not a literal "factual reality" as Abdul Baha >>says), despite the fact that the same kind of contextual Scriptural >>consideration that supported a literal virgin birth is even MORE >>supportive of a literal Resurrection, then I must have a strong and >>reasonable explanation for the exception in interpretation. Just WHY >>is the one symbolic while the other is literal? Otherwise I have >>created an unreasonable double standard in interpretation. Once again, >>if Abdul Baha, as you say, HAS no rationale for WHY the virgin birth is >>literal while the Resurrection is symbolic (doesn't try to "prove" that >>it must be symbolic), then we MUST defer to the contextual intentions of >>the passages that deal with those events to determine our >>interpretation. Luke 24 (as I "reminded" you) is only one of many >>passages that set that Scriptural contextual intention as SOLIDLY >>LITERAL, and even specifically glorified/physical, in terms of Christ's >>Resurrection. Thus, Abdul Baha, in arguing an impossibility of a literal >>interpretation for the Resurrection based on materialistic Science and >>reason, at least attempts to present some rationale for that position >>(even though observably wrong). That is what he seems to be doing as I >>read his answer to the question. You disagree. But even If, as you say, >>he is not arguing its impossibility, then he HAS NO reason to >>reinterpret the Resurrection symbolically. For the only other basis for >>deciding would be the Scriptural passages themselves, which are >>inarguable literal in intent. You yourself go on to say that, >>"...I feel it's important that you understand some basic Baha'i >>theological principles first. I also feel that simply stating these >>principles would be a mistake, since you're not likely to accept them >>without justification." >>This makes sense John. And in that regard I would submit to you that >>there IS NO "justification" for the Baha'i symbolic reinterpretation of >>the Resurrection, especially within the context of Baha'i acceptance of >>other miracles as being "literal" as well as "physical" (virgin birth), >>and the context of Scripture's intentions. You are welcomed to present >>one that we may discuss. > >To reiterate, you throw around the terms LITERAL and SYMBOLIC a lot Dale. I'm not sure the >way that you use them is accurate when describing the way Baha'is interpret the Bible. We >take the Bible literally, as the Word of God, and we have a deep reverence for the >Scripture and bow to it's divine authority. We don't arbitrarily symbolize certain >passages to fit our theology as you assert. We look for spiritual significance throughout >the Bible, just as Christians do. When certain events portrayed by the Bible take on a >supernatural nature, we look for the spiritual meaning of those events. This in no way >implies that we deny the literal occurrence of those events, it's just that we place no >special material significance on them. Jesus, himself, continually admonished His >followers to look upon His miracles in this very way. We affirm both the Virgin Birth and >the Resurrection. To us, both have spiritual and not material significance. It doesn't >matter whether either of these events occurred literally or not, the spiritual truths that >they demonstrate are what is important. This is what Abdul Baha was saying in SAQ. I feel >I presented this point of view quite clearly in my other letter. > >As to me missing the point: You contend that accepting the "literal" Resurrection is not >possible for Baha'is because of the implicit implication of Jesus returning PERSONALLY, >which would rule out Baha'u'llah's claims entirely. On the other hand, the Virgin Birth >poses no such theological threat. The reality of the matter is, we view the Virgin Birth >and the Resurrection in exactly the same ways, so the inconsistency that you keep pointing >towards doesn't exist. > >>You distinguish the "person" of Jesus from what you call the "spiritual >>Christ", allowing that other "persons" may have the "Christ spirit" just >>like Jesus did. Scripture distinctly does not. They are one and the >>same. The singular identity of the Person "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" IS >>the singular incarnation (not Just one of many "reflections" of) that >>"Spirit Christ" prophesied in Scripture. He was to come ONCE as a >>"suffering Servant" sacrificing Himself to intercede for humanity by >>paying the sin debt for we who cannot, and again at the end of the age >>as a conquering King who will usher in an eternal Kingdom apart from the >>present world we now know.Thus, to the same absolute extent that there >>is, as you observe, "only one Jesus", there is thus, only "one Christ". >>The literal Resurrection of Jesus is all the proof you need to see that >>the Spiritual Christ, and the Jesus Christ of Nazareth, are both the >>same, singular being. His spirit and personal identiity remain intact in >>the singularity that defines His identity beyond the grave and into all >>eternity. Many have said that they were "Christ's spirit" come again in >>another person. Scripture shows us that NO OTHER PERSON is the "Christ" >>except Jesus Christ of Nazareth. No other person in the world has been >>the Christ spirit either before Him or after. We see proof of this >>outlook in the Words of Jesus Himself when he specifically spoke on just >>this topic. Jesus tells us at Matthew 24:26, "So if anyone tells you, >>"There he (Christ) is, out in the desert.", do not go out; or,"Here he >>is in the inner rooms." do not believe it." Jesus is distinctly telling >>us that if "anyone" tells you "there is the Christ", to REJECT IT. No >>one will come"as" the Christ, but Christ Himself, Jesus Christ of >>Nazareth. Christ distinctly leaves us no room to believe that another >>different person will come bearing the "Christ spirit". He says reject >>ANY who come claiming. The broader context of Scripture always supports >>this perspective as we see in Acts chapter 1. At the Ascension we find >>that those who were watching as Christ ascended out of their sight were >>told that, "this <<>> Jesus will return in the same manner as you >>have seen Him depart." Not that another, different "person" would come >>bearing the "Christ spirit", but that this "SAME" Jesus would return, >>"Jesus" and "Christ" thus being shown to be singularly SYNONOMOUS. >>personally, promises to return, warning us to reject ANYONE else who >>claims that return. >>Matthew 24, >> >>Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in >my name, >claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. ...At >>that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There >>he is!' do not believe it. For false Christs and false prophets will >>appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the >>elect--if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time. So if >>anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, >>'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it." > >Obviously, I strongly disagree with the conclusions you've reached here. I'll show briefly >why I disagree, but I don't want to get into a full-blown discussion of prophecy here. >Maybe, another Baha'i that enjoys the subject can discuss it at greater length with you. >First, Baha'u'llah doesn't come in Jesus Christ' name. I refer to the fact that there is >only one "christ", but this is done for illustrative purposes (by me). Although >Baha'u'llah claims to be a new human temple for the everlasting Logos, He at no time used >or was known by the names 'Christ', 'Jesus' or any variation of these. Christ also >denounces impostors who 'shall shew great signs and wonders.' Baha'u'llah does not do >this. Even though Baha'is believe Baha'u'llah was capable of performing miracles, He >emphasized that such feats constitute evidence only for those that actually see them. >Baha'is are therefore forbidden to cite reported miracles as proofs of Baha'u'llah's >validity. Christ also states that He will not be hidden in 'inner rooms' or out in the >'desert'. Baha'u'llah did not hide Himself, but openly proclaimed His station to the >entire world. Christ will come as 'lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto >the west'. You may believe this supports your view of Christ coming in the sky, but >Baha'is believe it's an allusion to the openness of Baha'u'llah's public proclamation, >where he declared Himself via letters to all the rulers of the world, and to the >lightning-like speed with which knowledge of His Faith spread from the East to the West. I >believe this adequately shows that Baha'u'llah doesn't fit the criteria you've shown for a >false prophet. > >I explained the Baha'i interpretation of the verse, 'this same Jesus will >return...' in the document you are commenting on here. > >Some other verses relating to the Second Coming might be: > >And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon the him was called >Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a >flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns and he had a name written, that no man >knew, but he himself. >And he was clothed with a vesture of blood: and his name is called The Word of God. (Rev. >19:11-13) > >Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more >out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, >which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon >him my new name. >(Rev. 3:12) > >Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the >goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, >and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. >Therefore be ye ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh... The >lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that >he is not aware of. (Matt 24:42-4, 50) > >For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. >For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as >travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in >darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. (I Thess. 5:2-4) > >But he day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall >pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt away with fervent heat, the >earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up... Nevertheless we, according >to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. (II >Peter 3:10,13) > >More thief references are found in (Rev. 3:3 and 16:15) > >There's much more, but I think this is sufficient to show that you're wrong in believing >that only Jesus can return PERSONALLY. He will come with a new name and He will surprise >those that aren't watching. If you're not convinced, I'd be willing to discuss this a >little more fully. > > >>But your logic fails because you try to EQUATE the materialistic nature >>of the parts of your symbolic physical model, to the absolute spiritual >>reality they are meant to reprersent. How much "holiness" does it take >>to fill up the physical world? How much evil untill some spills out into >>space? Such questions reveal the impossible breach in logic that you >>fall into in your line of reason. By your same argument "all the >>fullness of God" could never be held within one human person. Yet it >>was. You mix the materialistic apples in your analogous model with the >>spiritual oranges that they attempt to represent and get meaningless >>conclusions that don't prove your point. You seem to have difficulty >>distiguishing the strictly material, from the spiritual, from the >>"glorified" (that mysteriously, but factually, weds both). > >This just goes to show that your knowledge of Baha'i beliefs is sorely lacking. For a guy >that's written at length on the subject of the Baha'i Faith, you show right here that you >are unaware of one the most fundamental Baha'i beliefs. You state "By your same argument >'all the fullness of God' could never be held within one human person." This is exactly >what I intended, and is exactly what Baha'is believe. Believing that God was fully >contained in the physical body of a human being is to deny His omniscience, His >omnipotence and His infiniteness. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you as knowledgeable >about the Baha'i Faith as I did. This subject is covered in my other letter. > >>You say, >>Likewise, God's unknowable infinite Essence, "dwelling in unapproachable >>light' (1 Tim. 6:16), does not approach or dwell within the physical >>universe; for 'theheaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him' (II > >Chron. 2:6)." >> >>But your citation of IIChron is taken out of context and you read >>meaning into the text that specifically does not pertain to the nature >>of Jesus Christ (You exercise isogesis here). Christ Jesus, who >>Scripture repeatedly tells us voluntarily set aside the full measure of >>His glory during His incarnate life, does not in any way deny Jesus the >>fullness of Hispersonal incarnate deity. Jesus BEING the "Creator of all >>that was created", His personal deity is in full agreement with >>IIChron that tells us that the Creator is bigger than His Creation. Can >>God not shield us from the full measure of His glory yet still be God? >>Scripture says that He can, and did in the person of Jesus Christ, God >>the Son. > >You say "you read meaning into the text that specifically does not pertain to the nature >of Jesus Christ (You exercise isogesis here)", yet I wasn't talking about the nature of >Jesus Christ. I was talking about the nature of God. II Chron is nothing but a quote of >this: > >But will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot >contain You. (1 Kings 8:27) > >I would hardly call that isogesis. You also say, "Christ Jesus, who Scripture repeatedly >tells us voluntarily set aside the full measure of His glory during His incarnate life." >I've read Scripture many times and I've never seen a single verse that says anything >remotedly like this. You may be able to show that this belief is inferred in Scripture, >but it is not stated directly anywhere. There's a BIG difference! Everything you've said >relating to Scripture to this point of the document is so mired in dogma, Dale, that it's >difficult to determine if you're capable of thinking for yourself on this subject. > >>You say of the Resurrection that, >> >>"The miracle of the resurrection is a truth which Baha'is AFFIRM with >>complete conviction. It constitutes incontrovertible proof of Christ's >immortality and >His unfailing redemptive power." >> >>But this is not what Abdul Baha says at all. He specifically tells us >>that the Resurrection was NOT one of those literal miracles but that it >>was only symbolic of the Disciples waning faith for three days after >>which, when they became "steadfast" that this was the Resurrection. As I >>have often pointed out, such a symbolic redefining must ignore those >>passages like Luke 24 and Acts Ch 1 which render it as an impossible >>replacement for the expressed literal reality of Christ's Resurrection. >>I have argued, as Baha'is do, that the Bible is indeed the inspired Word >>of God. But, I have also argued that if one is going to take that >>position, then one must accept what the Bible INTENDS to tell us. You, >>John, are trying to create a false unity between Scripture and Baha'i >>doctrine that simply doesn't exist. Comparing these two defnitive >>statements from Abdul Baha, and the Lord Jesus reveals that >>authoritative Baha'i doctrine and Scripture (the Bible) are not in >>agreement on fundamentals in what they teach. > >You can refer here to what I said near the top of the document. > > > >>You ask, >> >>"Is the immortality which the resurrection demonstrates a physical or a >>spiritual immortality? One tempting answer might be; 'Christ appeared to >His disciples >in physical form. It follows that His immortality, and the >>immortality granted to His followers, must also be physical. It means we >>will live forever on the earth in material bodies'. Before leaping to >>such a conclusion, however, let us explore a different possibility." >> >>We should indeed explore a different possibility. It is one that you >>have already touched upon in your expressed acceptance of the literal >>Resurrection of Christ. That is, that in His literal Resurrection we see >>a supernatural event that we cannot fully grasp, but that we are given >>concrete evidence of the reality of and must exercise Faith about. Our >>Resurrection promised is perfectly, and literally, modeled in what >>Scripture reveals of the nature of Christ's Resurrected self. But is >>that a reality with a tangible,"physical" aspect? Unquestionably yes. >>Is it a reality of a supernatural spiritual nature? Certainly? Is it >>understandable as BOTH without confusion to a mortal mind? No. Yet >>revealed exhaustively as fact to be accepted. Your outlook wants to see >>the imortality of the "body" as unreasonable because you fail to >>distinguish the carnal "body" from the glorified "body". I will concede >>that we do not understand the "glorified body" But we are given "Many >>convincing proofs" that it is a PHYSICAL REALITY, not just a spiritual >>incorporality. "...Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and >>bones as you see I have." >> >>You suggest, >> >>Let's consider Paul's explantion in I Cor. 15:35-50. >> >>Then you reflect, >> >>" The crucial point here is that 'children of the resurrection' who >>inhabit 'that world'(Luke 20:34-5) live on in a form utterly different >>from the material bodies with which we our familiar as 'children of this >>world' (Luke20:36). The difference, Paul says, between the 'body that is >>sown' (buried in the ground) and the 'body that will be' is at least as >>vast as the difference between an ungerminated grain of wheat and the >>ripened sheat which rises from it. The 'heavenly body' of the >>resurrection is no longer a 'natural', perishable', 'flesh and blood' >>body made from the 'dust of the earth' but an indestrucible 'spiritual >>body' in 'the likeness of the man from heaven'." >> >>But what you fail to recognize John, is that, taken in the context of >>Scripture's presentation of Jesus' literally Resurrected reality, there >>is Nevertheless and absolute literal /physical reality to that spiritual >>"BODY" Paul speaks of. You again fail to distinguish the mysterious (but >>tangible) nature of a Resurrection body (as modeled by Jesus Himself), >>and a "perishable', 'flesh and blood' body". You are not alone in >>failing to recognize this critical distinction. Baha'u'llah and Abdul >>Baha fail to perceive the inevitable difference and its associated >>conclusions as well. The term "literal", as I have expressed, most >>signifies in Christ's Resurrection a PERSONAL identity with His deity , >>and thus His return as well. But a literal Resurrection is indeed ALSO >>unquestionable presented as absolutely one with a tangible, physical >>aspect as well. "... And while they still did not believe it because of >>joy and amazement, He asked them, 'Do you have anything to eat?' They >>gave Him a piece of broiled fish and He took it and ate it in their >>presence." You reject a physical literallness to resurrection because >>you do not distinguish the "carnal" "body" from the "glorified" "BODY". > >Of course I don't distinguish between between the "carnal" body and the "glorified" body. >Why would I? The so-called "glorified" body is not mentioned directly in Scripture. It may >be inferred by "many convincing proofs" (none of which you've provided) as you say, but it >is not explicitly biblical or scriptural. It's a man-made creation that's only usefulness >is in supporting prior man-made doctrines. You repeatedly accuse me and other Baha'is of >twisting Scripture to fit our theology. This is an accusation which I believe is unfounded >and untrue. We may interpret certain parts of Scripture differently than you, but we never >flat-out make stuff up. We certainly have never resorted to the extreme measure of >creating fantasy devices to justify our views. > > > >Baha was saying in SAQ> > >again, refer to my response near the top of the document > > > >John > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:52 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Know Darrick Evenson by his Fruits (was :Re: Confessions) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.mormon,alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 8:35 PM Subject: Re: Know Darrick Evenson by his Fruits (was :Re: Confessions) >Dear Brian: > >This newsgroup is not moderated, with th result that many people come into >this house and make themselves at home. > >The opinions, statements and arguments you refer to are not in any way >representative or indicative of the Baha'i Faith, or of the Teachings of >Baha'u'llah. If you wish, you might visit soc.religion.bahai, where the >discussion is courteous and respectful. Ideas are challenged, of course, but >not attacked. There is dialogue, but not debate. > >If you have a question about the Baha'i Faith, there are Baha'is >participating here who would respond courteously and respectfully. I hope >that you do in fact have questions, for I enjoy them. > >Sincerely, > >Robert A. Little > >Brian Q. Weaver wrote in message <3530AD0D.5684BA9B@apk.net>... >>Jason Roberts wrote: >>> >>> In article <6gjj10$a1g$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> > Jason, > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:08 AM Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com This new list and site seems much better than coollist.com. I'd like to test this for a day or two and then switch all subscribers on coollist to makelist deleting the former which is too cumbersome and labor intensive to use. Let me know what you think.... >-----Original Message----- >From: MakeList! Staff >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 7:04 AM >Subject: MakeList! New List bahai-faith@makelist.com > > >> >>Dear List Owner: >> >>You have successfully created a new mailing list; the list address is >> >> bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >>Sending an e-mail message to this address will distribute it to >>all of its subscribers. >> >>An archive of messages sent to this mailing list is available at >> >> https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >>There are three ways to join the mailing list: >> >>1. You manually add subscribers using the list owner Web interface at >> https://www.findmail.com/webmlm >> >>2. Subscribers add themselves by entering their e-mail addresses into >> the Web subscription form that you can find on the list archive. >> >>3. Subscribers send e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>If you have set up the list to require approval for new subscribers, >>you will receive such approval requests in your mail. >> >> >> > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:23 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Over 8,100 messages on alt.religion.bahai Since April 1, 1997, there have now been over 8,100 messages posted to alt.religion.bahai. Check for yourself on www.dejanews.com. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:40 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Fw: Da'wa to bahais How typical of so many Bahais to accuse and point the finger.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll and Wade Schuette To: talisman Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:08 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Da'wa to bahais >>Frederick Glaysher forwarded from alt.religion.bahai: > >... >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca >>Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian >>Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:18 PM >>Subject: Da'wa to bahais >>... >>Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st >>>century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by >>>the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > > >So, what do you think, Fred? > >Is alt.religion.bahai going to become one of the sites regularly >used by this "da'wa movement" to post their anti-Bahai messages and recruit >converts to their cause? > >Wade > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Paul's Status in the Faith fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:19 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Paul's Status in the Faith >I have a problem with the analogy of John the Baptist's mission being similar >to the Bab's. Baha'is who read the teachings carefully know that Baha'u'llah >has repeatedly stated that the Bab was a Manifestation in His own right. He >(the Bab) stated that He was the first Letter (B) of the Greatest Name BH'A; >Baha'u'llah stated that He symbolized the second Letter (H)--we have not yet >seen nor do we understand the absence up until now of the third Letter (A) of >the Greatest Name. >"The Bab refers to Himself as the Ba (B) which permeates the water of the >Letters, and the point which stands at the Gate of the two Alifs" (Selections >from the writings of EG Browne, p. 215). >There is a wealth of symbolism in that quote, which I won't get into right >now, as it is not relevant to the subject at hand (Paul's role in the >Church); let it suffice to say we don't equate the Bab with John the Baptist, >whose role was to tell the people of his day of the coming of the >Manifestation. >Abdul'Baha was appointed the Interpreter by Baha'u'llah; even as a very young >man He (Abdul'Baha) demonstrated His unselfish and devoted service to >Baha'u'llah and His giftedness as to interpretation and understanding of >spiritual matters (I refer you to "The Secret of Divine Civilization," written >when He was a teenager, as well as to His exposition "Commentary on the >Tradition 'I was a Hidden Treasure" written when He was (I think) about 17). >Paul, on the other hand, was against Christ from the beginning and did not >"convert" until AFTER His death. I have always had a problem with his being >named an "apostle" of Christ's, inasmuch as Christ never appointed him as >such, but that is a personal issue, not scriptural. In anycase, Paul DID do >wonderful, tireless evangelical work after his conversion, and was apparently >instrumental in establishing the Church as we know it--events to which he is >to be given due credit. I have some difficulties setting up comparisons, >though--it's like comparing an apple with a pineapple. They're both fruit, >yes, but there the resemblance ends. >Nancy > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:32 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Saman Ahmadi Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.islam Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 1:27 PM Subject: Re: Da'wa to bahais > > >> afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca (aka nokhodchi) wrote: > >I think it is wonderful that someone has spent so much time >and effort compiling polemics of the Baha'i Faith. I also think >that it is useful for someone who is investigating the Baha'i >Faith to read what Mr. Afrashteh has compiled. > >However to be fair, he or she should also read some of the >Writings of Baha'u'llah (like the "Hidden Words" or "Seven Valleys") >to get an idea of what the Claimant claims. Since I am sure >Mr. Afrashteh would not suggest that I read the "Satanic Verses" >and make my final judgement of Islam. > >As to Mr. Afrashteh wish to "eliminate" the Baha'is, I am sure >he means this in a figurative sense since living in Canada he >enjoys the religious freedom that his Iranian brothers are not >afforded. > >But it is important to note that the excecution of the Bab and >the subsequent pogrom against the Babis, the imprisonment >and exile of Baha'u'llah, and more recently the treatment of >Baha'is by the Islamic Repulic of Iran not only has not resulted >in the physical elimination of this religion but has brought >attention to its teachings which most people find admirable. > >So I encourage everyone to visit Mr. Afrashteh's homepage and >if they still have some time to visit www.bahai.org > >-saman > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:33 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: AltWay Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 2:06 PM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >In article <353236E3.981@geocities.com>, Abir Majid >wrote: > " Again I'm not quite sure why Muslims say and explain that Islam is God's > religion, the religion of submission as revealed through all the > Prophets of old, and should not be eqated only to the religion brought > to us by Muhammad (SAAWS), only to tell us differently when a different > name is used. Why should we be hung up on names and outer garments when > we should look at the message? > >Reply :- >As far as I know no past Prophet has ever desired to create a separate >religion or sect. It was the people of the older dispensation who refused to >accept the new Prophet and separated themselves into a new sect. If I am not >mistaken the case was different with Baha'ullah. It is he who declared Bahai >separate from Islam. I would have no hesitation in including Bahai in Islam >as I would include Christianity provided there was no idolatory or false >claims against Allah. > >But tell me, if Bahai is not mainly about Baha'ullah (unless I am mistaken >about this) what arguments would you advance why a fair-minded muslim should >join Bahai. Why should not a muslim simply seek the truth and abide by it >instead of joining this or that sect. > >As I understand it, Bahai too has fallen into sects, though no blood shed >has yet occurred. > >H.S.Aziz > > > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:34 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:12 AM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >Dear "AltWay": > >If, as you say, you have read the Writings of Baha'u'llah, then nothing more >can be asked of you. He (Baha'u'llah) states unequivocally that He (along >with the Bab) fulfills all the prophecies of past dispensations. He states >that His Message comes from God, just as did that of Muhammad. > >I believe your interpretation of religion to be refreshing. If there is but >one God, one Creator, then how could there be multiple religions? Indeed, >Christ came to revivify the Religion of the Jews, who were as dead, not to >bring a new one. Muhammad appeared and renewed Gods religion, as did the Bab >and Baha'u'llah (Baha'u'llah is a title meaning the Glory of God). > >The point, as I see it, is that the Messengers bear basically the same >Message, whose purpose is to create (or recreate) unity, and which is >updated and renewed in accordance with the needs of the time in which it is >given. Christ said that He had more to tell us, but we were not ready yet. >"Howbeit, when He who is the Spirit of Truth cometh, He will lead you unto >all truth". Muhammad could have revealed far more, but instead His >Revelation was limited to what that people in that time needed and could >understand. It was Divine Knowledge, but not all knowledge. It was perfect, >but it was not all perfection. It was 1300 years ago. His Revelation created >a world of nation-states, and advanced the level of civilization to new >heights. But after so many centuries, those competing nation-states became >not the cause of the advancement of humanity, instead, they have become its >greatest threat. Baha'u'llah has revealed an enormous amount - the >equivalent of over 100 volumes - which has been further interpreted and >elucidated by 'Abdu'l-Baha', the Center of His Covenant, and expanded upon >by Shoghi Effendi. > >The result is a perfect blueprint for a new civilization, whose foundation >is the Word of God, where Justice is the theme, and unity through the >incredible diversity of humanity is assured. In virtually every community in >the world there live Baha'is today. The few millions of Baha'is now live in >more localities than do Muslims or the followers of any Religion save >Christianity. They are now struggling to build the foundation for a new >civilization. > >The Writings of Baha'u'llah were not directed to Muslims, or to Christians. >They are for the world, so some may seem not pertinent to you, but very >pertinent to a Hindu, for example. > >Your reaction to the Writings gives me pause. The first reaction of most >people I have known is that the enphasis is on God, with frequent and >powerful references to His attributes. Did you read the actual Writings of >Baha'u'llah, or perhaps of a Baha'i, who himself is writing about the Faith? > >In any event, thank you again for your courtesy. you demonstrate a love that >is sorely needed in such a hostile world. > >With Respect, > >Robert A. Little >AltWay wrote in message ... >>In article <6guer8$dqi$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>, "Robert Little" >> wrote: >> " And today, Baha'u'llah has come to us, calling the world to God. Those >> with seeing eyes and hearing ears will listen to the call of God, will >> discern the fragrance of God in His Writings. >> >>I have no quarrel with your right to follow what you sincerely believe. >>Nor do I claim that Baha'ullah's writings do not contain some good >>literature and sublime ideas. I have read quite an amount of Bahai >>literature. >>The people who join Bahai may indeed become better people for that. But >this >>also applies to any new convert to any religion. >> >>The reason why I am not a Bahai is that >>(1) I do not see why a person who could have expressed these ideas should >be >>regarded as Prophet. The ideas could have come out of the Quran which any >>spiritually enlightened person could have taught. The literature itself I >>find rather flowery instead of compact as most scriptures are. And I also >>get the impression that it talks more about Baha'ullah himself than giving >>out any teachings. My understanding of Islam makes me place much greater >>importance on the message than on the messenger. >>(2) The Day of Resurrection and Judgement, as I understand it, has not >>arrived. No Prophet was to come until then. >>(3) Some of the verses in the Quran and also in the Old and New Testaments >>which are used to justify the mission of Baha'ullah appear to have been >>misinterpreted by them or given a certain twist of which I am not sure. >>(4) Bahai's have separated themselves into a sect, thereby adding to the >>general confusion. >>(5) If Bahai has the same message as Islam, then even if I give it the >>benefit of the doubt, I am just as well of seeking the truth within Islam. >>What could I possibly do better by being a Bahai? >> >>H.S.Aziz >> >> >>-- >> _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >>|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >>| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >>_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >>______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:34 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: True One Vs. Impostor Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Maryam Butson Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 9:57 PM Subject: Re: True One Vs. Impostor >G'day and salaams all, > >I think it has to do with a fundamental difference in how Islam and >Muslims understand God's Messengers and how Baha'is and the Baha'i >Faith understands or views God's Messengers. A very strong theme in >Islam is that all reverence is due *only* to Allah. That the Prophets >and Apostles, whilst they may have been wise and wonderful and very >special human beings, they *are* simply men who Allah has chosen to >convey a message to humanity. For Baha'is however, the concept of >Manifestation is different, and carries overtones of divinity. >Manifestations reflect and mirror the Deity and *are* different from >the generality of humanity. They are pre-existent, infallible etc. > >Regards >Maryam >maryamATnetlink.com.au > >"Luke, you're going to find that many of >the truths we cling to depend greatly on our >point of view." >- Ben Kenobi, from The Return of the Jedi > > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. > **** Say (O Muhammad to mankind): > **** _|_ "If ye love Allah, follow me; > **** / \ Allah will love you and > **** forgive you your sins. Allah > **** is Forgiving, Merciful."(3:31) > ***** .oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo.oOo. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 16, 1998 7:36 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Fw: The Lesser Peace Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai To: Matthews@esper.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 10:11 PM Subject: The Lesser Peace > The Lesser Peace was established in 1957, when six Western European >countries signed the Treaty of Rome; establishing the European Community (now >Union). Since that time, the European Union has grown to 13 nations; with many >more wanting to join. Since 1957, there has been total peace between the >Members of the European Union; a peace has never known between those countries >before. 'Abdu'l-Baha prophecied of that this Lesser Peace would be >established in 1957, 1335 solar-years from the Hejira of Muhammad (622 A.D.) >in all editions of *Baha'u'llah and the New Era* until the 1950 edition; when >His words were changed to refer to the year 1963 (622 + 1335 solar or lunar >years does not equal 1963). This was a change made by the Review Committee of >Great Britain, who feared that 1957 would come without the World achieving >Universal Peace, and thus proving 'Abdu'l-Baha mistaken (He wasn't--they were >by reading His words to mean the Most Great Peace instead of the Lesser >Peace). > The Lesser Peace refers to the European Union. The Most Great Peace refers >to a time when the entire planet, not just the Union, will achieve lasting >peace. >Darrick Evenson > >soc.religion.bahai > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: Fw: The Lesser Peace fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:50 AM Subject: Fw: Fw: The Lesser Peace >---------- >> From: Star Saffa >> To: bahai-faith@coollist.org >> Subject: Fw: Fw: The Lesser Peace >> Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 11:01 PM >> >> Dear Mark - >> In that passage in BWF that you talked about regarding the Supreme >> Tribunal coming into being it also says that that Supreme Tribuanal will >be >> *Infallible*. Until the UHJ and the Supreme Tribunal merge we will have >two >> `Infallible' bodies operating on earth. Interesting and challenging this >> should be for Baha'is. >> Star* >> >> >> ---------- >> > From: Mark A. Foster >> > To: bahai-faith@coollist.com >> > Subject: Re: Fw: The Lesser Peace >> > Date: Thursday, April 16, 1998 9:19 PM >> > >> > At 08:39 AM 4/16/98 -0400, Darrick Evenson wrote: >> > >The Lesser Peace refers to the European Union. The >> > >Most Great Peace refers to a time when the entire planet, >> > >not just the Union, will achieve lasting peace. >> > >> > I think that your idea is original and creative. However, in my >> > view, the Lesser Peace is supposed to involve the Supreme >> > Tribunal, whose method of election is described by >> > `Abdu'l-Baha, >> > and, as I understand it, will include all nations, not only >> > those in Western Europe. >> > >> > To my understanding the Lesser Peace means the end of war, and >> > there have been numerous wars in Europe since 1957 - most of >> > which were not resolved by the United Nations or any other >> > international body. In addition, the Lesser Peace is >> > supposed to >> > synchronize with the completion of the Arc. >> > >> > Finally, the Universal House of Justice has repeatedly referred >> > to the Lesser Peace as a future event, and the first >> > election of >> > the Supreme Body wasn't until 1963. >> > >> > On the other hand, my feeling is that, in a spiritual (not >> > apparent) sense, the seed of the Lesser Peace was planted with >> > the release of the "Promise of World Peace" back in the 1980s. >> > However, as we know, the Lesser Peace itself will be >> > established >> > by the nations acting alone - not directly by the Universal >> > House of Justice. >> > >> > Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >> > owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >> > (913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >> > AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >> > https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:54 AM Subject: fw Re: Lesser Peace/Supreme Tribunal fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: Re: Lesser Peace/Supreme Tribunal >The Supreme Tribuanal will be elected from all the nations and the >Universal House of Justice has said that there is nothing in the Writings >that says *women* can not serve on it. Decisions that it makes are >*irrefutable* and one day it will merge into the Universal House of >Justice. I don't know how this will effect the service of women on the >House. Below is the passage from (Baha'i World Faith pages 291-2,1956 >edition) for anyone interested. Star* > >"For example, the question of Universal Peace, about which His Holiness >Baha'u'llah says that the Supreme Tribunal must be estabished: although the >League of Nations has been brought into existence, yet it is incapable of >establishing Universal Peace. But the Supreme Tribunal which His Holiness >Baha'u'llah has described will fulfill this sacred task with the utmost >might and power. And His plan is this: that the national assemblies of each >country and nation --that is to say parliaments-- should elect two or three >persons who are the choicest men of that nation, and are well informed >concerning international laws and the relations between governments and >aware of the essential needs of the world of humanity in this day. The >number of these representatives should be in proportion to the number of >inhabitants of that country. The election of these souls who are chosen by >the national asssembly, that is, the parliament, must be confirmed by the >upper house, the congress and the cabinet and also by the president or >monarch so these persons may be the elected ones of all the nation and the >government. From among these people the members of the Supreme Tribunal >will be elected, and all mankind will thus have a share therein, for every >one of these delegates is fully representative of his nation. When the >Supreme Tribunal gives a ruling on any international question, either >unanimously or by majority rule, there will no longer be any pretext for >the plaintiff or ground of objection for the defendant. In case any of the >governments or nations, in the execution of the irrefutable decision of the >Supreme Tribunal, be negligent or dilatory, the rest of the nations will >rise up against it, because all the governments and nations of the world >are the supporters of this Supreme Tribunal. Consider what a firm >foundation this is! But by a limited and restricted League the puposes will >not be realized as it ought and should. This is the truth about the >situation which has been stated." -- `Abdu'l-Baha > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1(pt 2) fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: John Walker To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1(pt 2) >Carmel, Sharon, Achor: > >Isaiah 35:1-2 The wilderness and the dry land shall be glad, the desert >shall rejoice and blossom; like the crocus it shall blossom abundantly, and >rejoice with joy and singing. The glory of Lebanon shall be given to it, >the >majesty of Carmel and Sharon. They shall see the Glory of the Lord, the >majesty of our God > >Hosea 2:15 there I will give her her vineyards, and make the Valley of >Achor a door of hope > >Bahaullah was imprisoned in Akka (Achor) across the bay from Mt Carmel, >where the Bahai World Centre is situated. His final resting place was in >the plain of Sharon nearby. From prison He addressed the summons to the >rulers and religious leaders calling upon them to recognise Gods new >revelation. Since that time, especially since the establishment of the >modern state of Israel, the desert has indeed bloomed. > > >Description of Future Glorious Kingdom of The Prince Of Peace: > >Isaiah 9:6-7. For unto us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the >government shall be upon His shoulder, and his name will be called >Wonderful >Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. > > >Points Related (To Isaiah 9:6-7) that Christ Denied or Did Not Fulfil: > >Matthew 10:34 Do not think that that I have come to bring peace on earth, >I >have not come to bring peace, but a sword. > >Matthew 22:21 Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesars and >to God the things that are Gods > >John 18:36 My kingship is not of this world > >John 10: 29 My father, who has given them to me is greater than all. >Could >the prophecies of Isaiah therefore have been fulfilled by Jesus? Or are >they >more likely to be fulfilled by the Returned Christ? > > >The Books Sealed: > >Daniel 12:4,8-9 But you Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until >the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall >increase > ...O Lord what shall be the issue of these things? He said Go your way >Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. > > >The Unsealing Of The Books At The Coming Of The Ancient Of Days: > >Daniel 7:9 -10 As I looked, thrones were placed and one that was ancient >of >days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow.....the court sat in >judgment, and the books were opened. > >Revelation 5:9 Worthy art thou to take the scroll and to open its seals. >The Scriptures unsealed at the return of Christ. Note Bahaullahs >writings >explaining Day of Judgement, baptism, Trinity, life after death, heaven and >hell, immortality of the soul, good and evil etc. These writings represent >the literal opening of the seals and explains why the Bahai Scriptures >contain such clear interpretations and explanations that have divided >Christians for centuries. > > >A Shoot From The Stump Of Jesse (Abraham): > >Genesis 22:17-18 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your >descendants as the stars of heaven.....and by your descendants shall all >the >nations of the earth bless themselves Gods promise to Abraham. > >Genesis 17:19 ..you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my >covenant >with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. The >covenant with Isaac, Abrahams son through his wife Sarah, was fulfilled by >the revelations sent through the Old Testament prophets (Daniel, Isaiah, >Ezekiel and others) and by Jesus. These messengers were usually treated >badly. When the Jews rejected Jesus and crucified Him, they broke the >covenant of Abraham. As a result the mantle of revelation fell upon other >descendants of Abraham, his son Ishmael by his Egyptian slave Hagar. > >Genesis 17:20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you I will bless him and make >him fruitful and multiply him exceedingly; he shall be the father of twelve >princes, and I will make him a great nation. The nation of Islam and its >twelve princes (the 12 Imams, descendants of the prophet who lived around >600-900 CE) fulfilled this promise. Jesus prophesied these events in the >parable of the vineyard. > >Mark 12:11-12 A man planted a vineyard...and let it out...When the time >came, he sent his servants to the tenants to get from them some of the >fruit >of the vineyard. And they took him and beat him and sent him away empty >handed...And he sent another, and him they killed; and so with many others. >He had still one other, a beloved son; finally he sent him to them saying >"they will respect my son" But those tenants said to one another - "this is >the heir, come let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours". And they >took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. What will the >owner of the vineyard do? He will come and destroy the tenants and give the >vineyard to others. The vineyard represents Gods revelation, and the >unfaithful tenants the Israelites. After they crucify the Son of the owner >of the vineyard, they are thrown out (destruction of Jerusalem and >scattering of Jews until they started to return in 1844) and the vineyard >of >Gods revelation is given to others (the children of Ishmael), fulfilling >the prophecies concerning Abrahams descendants and the specific blessings >to Ishmael (remember Revelation 11:1-3 given over to the nations and they >will trample over the holy city for forty two months (1260 days or years, >Muslim year 1260 = CE 1844.) > >Abraham took a third wife, Keturah. The Bab traces His ancestry through >Isaac and Ishmael and Bahaullah traces his ancestry through Abraham and >Keturah, and fulfils the prophecy of Isaiah. > >Isaiah 11:1-12 There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse... >And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him... he shall smite the earth >with the rod of his mouth... He will raise an ensign for the nations, and >will assemble the outcasts of Israel. > > >Destruction Of Jerusalem, Followed By a Glorious Kingdom: > >Micah 3:9-12 Hear this, you heads of the house of Jacob who abhor >justice.because of you Zion shall be ploughed as a field; Jerusalem shall >become a heap of ruins... > >Micah 4:1-3 (same as Isaiah 2:2-4) ....It shall come to pass in the latter >days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the >highest of the mountainsand many nations shall come, and say: Come, let >us >go to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he >may teach us his ways, and we may walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall >go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.He ..shall >decide >for strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into >plowshares, spears into pruning hooks, neither shall they learn war any >more >. The Bahai world centre is established upon the slopes of Mt Carmel a >short distance from where Bahaullah was incarcerated, where it grows in >beauty and influence in the consciousness of a distracted world. > > >Proof Of The True Prophet: > >Jesus left some clear criteria to help people tell who was a true prophet. > >John 14:26 But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send >in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all >that I have said to you > >John 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare >it >to you. > >Matthew 7 15-23 Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheeps >clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their >fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every >sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil ...Thus you will >know them by their fruits. > > >Bahaullahs attribute to Jesus and some Fruits of the Bahai Faith: > >>From Bahaullahs writings: Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded >up >His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By >sacrificing Himself however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created >things. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendour >of His glory upon all created things. Through His power, born of Almighty >God, the eyes of the blind were opened, the soul of the sinner sanctified. > >The following is a brief summary of some of the teachings of the Bahai >Faith:- Oneness of God, Oneness of Religion, Unity of the Human Race, >Individual Search after Truth, Equality of Men and Women, Universal >Education, International Auxiliary Language, Harmony of Science and >Religion, World Peace through a World Federal system, Immortality of the >Soul. > >Bahaullah also had the gift of prophecy. During the 1860s and 1870s >Baha >ullah wrote to the kings and rulers of His time, announcing His advent. >Amoung other prohesies, He predicted the overthrow of Napoleon III, the >Czar >s and Kaisers throne and two world wars for Germany, > > >O KING of Berlin! Give ear unto the Voice calling from this manifest >Temple. Do thou remember the one whose power transcended thy power >(Napoleon III), and whose station excelled thy station. Where is he? >Whither >are gone the things he possessed? Take warning, and be not of them that are >fast asleep. He it was who cast the Tablet of God behind him, when We made >known unto him what the hosts of tyranny had caused Us to suffer. >Wherefore, >disgrace assailed him from all sides, and he went down to dust in great >loss. Think deeply, O King, concerning him, and concerning them who, like >unto thee, have conquered cities and ruled over men. The All-Merciful >brought them down from their palaces to their graves. Be warned, be of them >who reflect... O banks of the Rhine! We have seen you covered with gore, >inasmuch as the swords of retribution were drawn against you; and you shall >have another turn. > > >Spread Of The Bahai Faith: > >Habbakuk 2:14 For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory >of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea. > >Zecharriah 14:9 And the Lord will become king over all the earth; on that >day the Lord will be one and his name one. The Bahai Faith has achieved >dramatic growth in the last forty years and is now the second most >widespread religion after Christianity. > > >Pentecost: (Vision of Jesus Three Days After His Crucifixion): > >Luke 24:13-50 The visit of Jesus to his disciples shortly after his >crucifixion (called by Christians, Pentecost, believed by some Christians >to >be the return of Christ). Can this possibly be the return of Christ? Had >all the other prophecies concerning Christs return outlined above been >fulfilled? > > >Who Then Is Saved? > >Matthew 19:27  Truly I say unto you, in the new world, when the son of man >shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on >twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel...and inherit eternal >life. > > >For more information and other good web sites contact >https://pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled/ or >https://www.bci.org/st_paul/christian.htm or >https://www.bci.org/st_paul/menu1.htm . > >I look forward to any comment on this posting. > > > >John Walker >Email Address(es): > jwalker@ozdocs.net.au > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > Superior connectivity. World class hosting. > > Astra Labs WebHosting - https://www.astraweb.com > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 7:01 AM Subject: fwFw: The Lesser Peace fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Friday, April 17, 1998 7:00 AM Subject: Re: Fw: The Lesser Peace >At 08:39 AM 4/16/98 -0400, Darrick Evenson wrote: >>The Lesser Peace refers to the European Union. The >>Most Great Peace refers to a time when the entire planet, >>not just the Union, will achieve lasting peace. > >I think that your idea is original and creative. However, in my >view, the Lesser Peace is supposed to involve the Supreme >Tribunal, whose method of election is described by >`Abdu'l-Baha, >and, as I understand it, will include all nations, not only >those in Western Europe. > >To my understanding the Lesser Peace means the end of war, and >there have been numerous wars in Europe since 1957 - most of >which were not resolved by the United Nations or any other >international body. In addition, the Lesser Peace is >supposed to >synchronize with the completion of the Arc. > >Finally, the Universal House of Justice has repeatedly referred >to the Lesser Peace as a future event, and the first >election of >the Supreme Body wasn't until 1963. > >On the other hand, my feeling is that, in a spiritual (not >apparent) sense, the seed of the Lesser Peace was planted with >the release of the "Promise of World Peace" back in the 1980s. >However, as we know, the Lesser Peace itself will be >established >by the nations acting alone - not directly by the Universal >House of Justice. > >Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >(913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (8 email lists & more) >https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) > > > > -------------------<< Advertisement >>------------------- > High bandwidth usage? No problems. > > https://www.astrax.com - Astra X Specialised Web Hosting > --------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 7:08 AM To: bahai-faith at coollist.com Subject: Exodus to makelist.com I'm convinced that www.makelist.com has more features and service to offer than coollist. If no one objects, we really ought to move the bahai-faith list over there. I've already set up a test version of it. I'll wait a day or so for other opinions and then move the entire subscription list to makelist and delete coollist. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 17, 1998 7:11 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours It's fraught with problems. I'm ready to move completely to makelist and have posted such a message to coollist. Let me give people a day or two to respond whether they mind or not and then I'll move all subscriptions over to makelist. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Warning: could not send message for past 4 hours >Hi, Frederick - > >I just received this warning message when I tried sending >message below it to Cool List. It used to happen all the time. >Maybe it will go through eventually. > >Warmly, Mark > >At 01:23 PM 4/15/98 -0500, you wrote: >> ********************************************** >> ** THIS IS A WARNING MESSAGE ONLY ** >> ** YOU DO NOT NEED TO RESEND YOUR MESSAGE ** >> ********************************************** >> >>The original message was received at Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:26:15 >-0500 (CDT) >>from s1as05-25.qni.com [209.126.15.25] >> >> ----- The following addresses had transient non-fatal >errors >----- >> >> >> ----- Transcript of session follows ----- >>... Deferred: Connection refused by >one.astraweb.com. >>Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours >>Will keep trying until message is 1 day old >>Reporting-MTA: dns; ultra.qni.com >>Arrival-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:26:15 -0500 (CDT) >> >>Final-Recipient: RFC822; bahai-faith@coollist.com >>Action: delayed >>Status: 4.4.1 >>Remote-MTA: DNS; one.astraweb.com >>Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:23:44 -0500 (CDT) >>Will-Retry-Until: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 08:26:15 -0500 (CDT) >>Return-Path: >>Received: from realityman (s1as05-25.qni.com [209.126.15.25]) >> by ultra.qni.com (8.8.7/8.8.6) with SMTP id IAA18168; >> Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:26:15 -0500 (CDT) >>Message-Id: <199804151326.IAA18168@ultra.qni.com> >>X-Sender: mfoster@mail.qni.com >>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.1.327 (Beta) >>Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:30:33 -0500 >>To: "Frederick Glaysher" >>From: "Mark A. Foster" >>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] bahai-faith@makelist.com >>Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com, bahai-faith@coollist.com >>In-Reply-To: <004f01bd6860$69ba2d40$762ab3c7@glaysher.Library> >>Mime-Version: 1.0 >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >> >>Frederick - >> >>Your message came through fine. Since I doubt that Cool List >>will simply delete a list due to inactivity, perhaps we could >>all migrate over to this new list and try using it instead of >>Cool List. >> >>Most people who subscribe to lists are used to an email >command >>line interface, and the way that Cool List >>(www.coollist.com) and >>One List (www.onelist.com) do it probably discourage many >>people >>from joining. >> >>One thing I have noticed is that, at least using Eudora, >when I >>click on the reply button, it defaults to the sender of the >>message - and not to the list itself (as is the case with Cool >>List). Therefore, if someone wants their reply to be seen by >>all >>list members, they may need to either do a "reply to all" or >>add >>the New List address (bahai-faith@newlist.com) manually. >> >>Warmly, Mark >> >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 7:28 AM To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Final list of coollist subscribers 19 artist@coinet.com davecrnll@aol.com farmid@clinicomp.com FG@hotmail.com gsemler@pdi-corp.com harris632@aol.com jeffery.decker@usa.net josh6396@aol.com jwalker@ozdocs.net.au laaeterna@aol.com lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mbkafes@bestweb.net mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com rmsolem@mke.ab.com shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au tommycarter@usa.net whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 7:59 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: switch to makelist.com I just deleted all subscribers from coollist and have added their email addresses to makelist.com, which should send them invitations to confirm their subscriptions. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: bahai-faith@coollist.com moves to bahai-faith@makelist.com Since there have technical problems with bahai-faith@coollist.com it has been moved to bahai-faith@makelist.com One advantage of makelist.com is that anyone, even non-subscribers, may "cc" a message to it when posting to alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.misc, for instance, allowing those with only email to follow along with the discussion. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com https://www.makelist.com bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com https://www.findmail.com/webmlm bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: AltWay Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >In article <35379DE6.1816@geocities.com>, Abir Majid >wrote: > Re :- But tell me, if Bahai is not mainly about Baha'ullah (unless I am > mistaken about this) ... > > "Baha'u'llah was the Vehicle, or the Conduit, or the Mirror, conveying or > reflecting to us God's message." > >Reply :- The use of the word "Manifestation" in connection with Baha'ullah >reminds me a bit too much about the Christian idea that Jesus is God. This >would not, of course, be surprising since he claims to be Jesus returned. >But then I must admit, I have a bias against such notions. > > Re:- what arguments would you advance why a fair-minded muslim should > join Bahai. Why should not a muslim simply seek the truth and abide by > it instead of joining this or that sect. > > "If the fair minded muslim is happy with the state of affairs of the > world and has no messianic expectations (for the coming of a promised > one) and believes that everything is under control and can easily be > dealt with, then he or she need not/ should not join Baha'i or any other > religion." > >Reply :- Now, now, no need to be sarcastic! >You know very well most Muslims know that things are wrong with the world, >and most also expect the return of Jesus, and they believe that Islam >contains the solution to world problems and some are working hard to >re-establish Islam as Baha'is may be working to establish Bahai. > >My question was much more specific. How would you persuade me that Bahai >contains something, not contained in Islam, but essential for the future of >the humanity. I am, I think, reasonably open minded and receptive to >evidence. But I may have missed something. > >H.S.Aziz > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com https://www.findmail.com/webmlm bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: AltWay Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >In article <6h9k7p$3ug$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, "Robert Little" > wrote: > >> Dear "AltWay" >> I want to take the opportunity to tell you how much I appreciate all that >> you have taught me. I knew in a general way that Islam rose and fell, as >> have all civilizations, and as is the current civilization of >> nation-states, dominated by the "west". But your insights as to how it >> came about were valuable to me, and I hope to the others who visit here. > >Dear Robert, >Thankyou for your kind words. It is refreshing to find someone on this site >from another religion who is not hostile, but open to reasonable ideas. > >H.S.Aziz > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:55 AM Subject: New mailing list: bahai-faith@makelist.com A new unmoderated mailing list devoted to the Bahai faith has been created: bahai-faith@makelist.com. It's earlier incarnation proved fraught with technical problems at coollist.com. The interface at makelist.com offers many more features for users and is much more user-friendly, especially for those with only email capabilities. Non-subscribers may also post to the list. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:57 AM Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com A new mailing list devoted to the Bahai faith has been created: bahai-faith@makelist.com. It's earlier incarnation proved fraught with technical problems at coollist.com. The interface at makelist.com offers many more features for users and is much more user-friendly, especially for those with only email capabilities. Non-subscribers may also post to the list. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad(SAAW) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture .iranian Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 10:39 AM Subject: [Bahaism]: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad(SAAW) >Hi. > >Dear Majid, Once more you are advancing a notion which >contradicts a fundamental doctrine of Islam supported by >hundreds of verses of the holy Quran and ahadith. I hate >to sound repetitive, (you did divide the dialogue into >pieces) but Allah has repeatedly warned us against doing >what prior nations did: We are not to ignore what Allah >and His Messenger(SAAW) have clearly decreed and invent >a new deen (way of life) for ourselves... > >Now, let's look at the verses you mentioned. > >> Abir Majid (A Bahai) wrote: >> The Holy Qur’an tells us about a covenant between >> God and the Prophet(SAAWS): >> >> And call to mind when WE took from the Prophets >> their covenant, and from thee [Muhammad], and from >> Noah and Abraham, and Moses and Jesus, son of >> Mary, and WE indeed, took from them a solemn >> covenant; >> Qur'an 33:8 > >Qur'an, 33:8: >============= >To understand this verse, you need to start reading from >the beginning of the chapter. Pay close attention to verse >33:4. This is the core of the matter. The Prophet(SAAW) >was told to break away from the tradition of the time of >ignorance and clarify the point that "adopted sons" have >no blood relation with "parents" (in fact, in Islam they >keep their real name) to the extent that even the former >wives of the "adopted sons" are marriable by adoptive >fathers. > >Naturally, the Prophet(SAAW) was somewhat concerned >about breaking an age old tradition when many people >were looking for any excuse to reject Islam. But, >Allah immediately reminds him of the covenant taken >from him and other Prophets(pbut) (to obey Allah >and do not delay what they are told), puts his mind at >easy, encouraged him to go on, and reminded him that >everyone will be asked about the message (and example) >of the Prophet on the Day of Judgment. > > And remember We took from the prophets their covenant: > As (We did) from thee: from Noah, Abraham, Moses, and > Jesus the son of Mary: We took from them a solemn > covenant: > > That (Allah) may question the (custodians) of Truth > concerning the Truth they (were charged with): And > He has prepared for the Unbelievers a grievous Penalty. > (The Holy Quran, 33.7-8) > >As you read on further down, you will see it cleared up: > > "Behold! Thou didst say to one who had received the > grace of Allah and thy favour: "Retain thou (in wedlock) > thy wife, and fear Allah." But thou didst hide in thy > heart that which Allah was about to make manifest: thou > didst fear the people, but it is more fitting that thou > shouldst fear Allah. Then when Zaid had dissolved (his > marriage) with her, with the necessary (formality), We > joined her in marriage to thee: in order that (in future) > there may be no difficulty to the Believers in (the > matter of) marriage with the wives of their adopted > sons, when the latter have dissolved with the necessary > (formality) (their marriage) with them. And Allah's > command must be fulfilled. > > There can be no difficulty to the Prophet in what Allah > has indicated to him AS A DUTY. It was the practice > (approved) of Allah amongst those of old that have > passed away. And the command of Allah is a decree > determined. > > (It is the practice of those) who preach the Messages > of Allah, and fear Him, and fear none but Allah. And > enough is Allah to call (men) to account." > (The Holy Quran, 33:37-39) > >Indeed, this concept of "stick to covenant and deliver >what I have given you without worrying about others or >delaying" is repeated in other verses of the Quran. >For instance: > > O Messenger! proclaim the (message) which hath been > sent to thee from thy Lord. If thou didst not, thou > wouldst not have fulfilled and proclaimed His mission. > And Allah will defend thee from men (who mean > mischief). For Allah guideth not those who reject > Faith. > (The holy Quran, 5.67) > >The idea that Prophets and Scholars entrusted to protect >and uphold the religion will be questioned about their >trust is also supported in Quran. For instance: > > One day will Allah gather the messengers together, > and ask: "What was the response ye received (from men > to your teaching)?" They will say: "We have no knowledge: > it is Thou Who knowest in full all that is hidden." > (The holy Quran, 5.109) > > It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was > guidance and light. By its standard have been judged > the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to > Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: > for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's > book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear > not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a > miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light > of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) > Unbelievers. > (The holy Quran, 5.44) > >Those who have even a basic understanding of Quran and >Hadith have no difficulty understanding this verse. > >Incidently, the "covenant" of Allah with humanity is not >something new to the deen of Islam and, as mentioned in many >passages of the Quran, was taken from prior nations. One >major component of the covenant was that those who claim to >believe should accept future Messengers (i.e. prophecies to >that effect existed in each Message). > >This covenant includes: > (I only mention a few passages where they occur) > > 1. Worship None but Allah: > Submit to Him and Obey Him; > (Quran, 2:43, 2:83, 5.7) > 2. Fulfill thy Covenant: > Stick with the Laws and Decrees revealed; > (Quran, 2:40, 2:63, 2:93, 4.154, 6.152, 7.102 > 9.77, 13.20, 13.25, 16.91, 16.95, 23.8 > 48.10, 70.32, 2:63) > 3. Accept Foretold Prophets, help them, obey > them and embrace the new Message: > Remember that there are clear prophesies > foretelling next Messengers in prior scriptures > so when the Messenger appeared /w proofs, > those sincere to their covenant would recognize > and accept him; > [There is no such prophecy in Islam - more > about this below] > (Quran 2:41, 3.112, 3.183 , 4.155, 5.12, > 5.70, 57.8) > 4. Do not Hide the Truth: > Do not change the laws or "invent" new faiths > by using your own interpretation of unclear > verses - stick to revelation; > (Quran, 2:42, 2:45, 2:80, 2:93, 3:77, 3:99, > 3.187, 7.169, 9.77, 33.8) > 5. Remember the Day of Judgment: > You will be asked about the Covenant; > (Quran, 2:46, 9.77, 68.39) > 6. Perform Salat, Give Charity: > Curb evil (sins) and be dutiful to others; > (Quran, 2:43, 2:83, 5.12, 13.22, 23.9, 70.34) > 7. Be kind to All (Parents, Kindred, orphans, needy): > (Quran, 2:83) > 8. Be Just and Fair: > Treat all equally and do not abuse the right > of others; > (Quran, 2:83, 5:8, 6.152, 16.92, 70.33) > 9. Shed no Blood: > Unless in way of Justice or to Stop evil; > (Quran, 2:84) > 10. Enjoin Good and Forbid Evil: > Also act yourself in such a manner, apply > the laws uniformly, and remind others of > the evil they commit; > (Quran, 2:44, 13.21) > 11. Do not Exile (peaceful) People from their Homes: > (Quran, 2:84) > 12. Persevere patiently: > Hold on tightly to the Rope of Allah and be not > one of those who reject the truth, separate > themselves from the believers, and invent new > religions; > (Quran, 2:45, 3.103, 13.22) > >Now, let's look at your second quote: > >Qur'an 3:81-82: >=============== >> This covenant which is made through all the prophets >> is further mentioned in this verse: >> >> And when Allah made a covenant through the prophets: >> Certainly what I have given you of Book and wisdom-- >> then an apostle comes to you verifying that which is >> with you, you must believe in him, and you must aid >> him. He said: Do you affirm and accept My compact in >> this (matter)? They said: We do affirm. He said: >> Then bear witness, and I (too) am of the bearers of >> witness with you. Whoever therefore turns back after >> this, these it is that are the transgressors. >> Qur'an 3:81-82 > >The Bahai interpolation that this verse is referring to >the covenant taken from "Prophets" in (33:8) is without >any merit. > >Obviously, the Ayah is referring to anyone who accepted >a revelation (Book and Wisdom/Hadith) and took a covenant >THROUGH a Prophet. This covenant included the promise to >embrace and assist future Messengers who brought signs and >proofs matching the prophecies. Those who rejected the >prophesied Prophets would have been breaking their covenant >with Allah... > >I have enumerated many verses dealing with this covenant >before. I like to list a few here, because I am afraid >many do not realise that one fundamental aspect of the >covenant is acceptance of prophesied Messengers (because >they progressively delivered more complete version of the >Message which culminated in Islam): > > Allah did aforetime take a COVENANT from the Children > of Israel, and we appointed twelve captains among them. > And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish > regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in > MY MESSENGERS, HONOUR AND ASISST them, and loan to Allah > a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your > evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing > beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, > he hath truly wandered from the path or rectitude." > (The holy Quran, 5.12) > > "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, > whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in > the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is > just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as > lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from > what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their > heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So > it is those who BELIEVE IN HIM, HONOUR HIM, HELP HIM, > AND FOLLOW THE LIGHT WHICH IS SENT DOWN WITH HIM,- it > is they who will prosper." > (The holy Quran, 7.157) > > Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to > stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, > and ALL THE REVELATION that has come to you from your > Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from > thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their > obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou > not over (these) people without Faith. > (The holy Quran, 5.68) > >This is how Allah Completed and Perfected His religion, >in Islam, for the humanity. > >In the Old and New Testaments, we find prophecies about >a future Messenger, which Muslims hold to be none other >than Muhammad(SAAW). I know many "Christians" will turn >a blind eye to the truth and will advance more complex >explanations and personal ideas (not based on revelation) >to disagree with the clear text of the prophecy; but, >that's the matter for another thread. > >For you, as a Bahai, the most importand concept should >be that: > > Old and New Testament CLEARLY left the door to > Prophethood open and even made prophecies about > "SOME" future Prophet/Messenger. > >When we read the previous discussion about COVENANT >taken from those who believed, the significance of >this fact become clear. It is indeed a sign of >Allah's mercy and justice that He preserved those >prophecies in prior scriptures: He will not hold >anyone accountable for something they do not know >(i.e. Christians claim Bible is divine, let them >follow it and accept the prophesied Messenger). > >In prior revelations, each Messenger foretold the >advent of the next Messenger in clear unmistakable >terms. Some people may disagree with who that Messenger >should be; but, there is at least a mention of "someone"... > >When we look at Quran and authentic hadith, we do not >see any such mention of a future prophet/messenger; >Instead, we encounter hundreds of clear statements to >the contrary. The fact that no clear warning is given >to Muslims - as was given to those before - is another >proof that Muhammad(SAAW) was indeed the last Prophet >and Messenger to be commissioned to humanity. >"Accepting Future Prophets/Mesenger" is not part of >the covenant taken from Muslims, because the Message >has been PERFECTED and COMPLETED and there will be no >need for future prophets or messengers. > >This truth poses a big problem for Bahais. Just like >"Original Sin" is what has allowed the Paulian Church >to develop its Islamically questionable doctrines, >Bahaism relies on continuity of Message to build the >foundation of its faith. They claim to accept the >Word of Allah that Islam is Guarded (Protected), yet >their very first claim (New Messenger) is rejected by >what they claim to accept!!! > >Christians who are true to themselves and reject the >invention of "original sin" (are newborns sinful?!) see >the entire dogma of Christianity fall before them; >Bahais who are true to themselves and recognize the >inherent contradiction in Bahaism also do quickly >recognize the difference between a Divine deen (religion >and way of life) and a man-made system (even if it >appeals to them). Divine revelations can not be >confusing or contradictory from its very core. > >The deen of Islam is the way to live one's life in >accordance to the will of the Creator of the Universe. > > O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah > with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless > you are Muslims. > (The holy Quran, 3:102) > > If anyone desires a deen (religion/way of life) other > than Islam, never will it be accepted of him; and in the > Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost. > (The holy Quran, 3.85) > > The Deen before Allah is Islam : Nor did the People of > the Book dissent therefrom except through envy of each > other, after knowledge had come to them. But if any deny > the Signs of Allah, Allah is swift in calling to account. > (The holy Quran, 3.19) > > It is He Who has sent His Messenger with Guidance and the > Religion of Truth, that he may proclaim it over all > religion, even though the Pagans may detest (it). > (The holy Quran, 61.9) > >I hope those who are sincerely looking for the truth will >benefit from this posting. Those who want to find a reason >not to believe will argue and invent new excuses till Death >approaches them... > >======================================================== >Only a few possible Prophecies About Muhammad(SAAW) in >the Bible: > > "And the Lord said unto me. They have well spoken > that which they have spoken, I will raise them up > a prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, > and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall > speak unto them all that I shall command him. And > it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not > hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my > name, I will require it of him." > (Deut 18:19) > > "And he said, the Lord came form Sinai, and rose up > from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount > Paran, and he came with ten thousand saints; from > right hand went a fiery law for them." (Deut 33:2). > > (about Ishmael) > "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I > have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and > will multiply him exceedingly: twelve princes shall > he beget, and I will make him A GREAT NATION." > (Genesis 17:20). > > "..the Holy One from Mount Paran. His glory covered > the heavens and the earth was filled with his praise.. > he looked and made the nations tremble". > (Habbakuk 3:3) > > "He will guide you into all truth; for he shall not > speak of himself, but whatsoever he shall hear that > shall he speak." (John 16:13) > > "He shall send Jesus Christ which before was preached > unto you; whom the heaven must receive until the times > of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by > the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world > began. For Moses truly said unto the fathers, a Prophet > shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your > brethren like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things > whatsoever he shall say unto you." (Acts 3:20-22). > > "The kingdom of God shall be taken form you and given > to a nation bringing forth fruits thereof." (Matthew 21:43). > > - Also, John 26:15, 7:16; Acts 3:21-22; Luke 18:8; > John 1:19-21; etc. > > - etc., etc. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Understanding the Language of the Holy Qur'an Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture .iranian Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 11:05 AM Subject: [Bahaism]: Understanding the Language of the Holy Qur'an >Hi. > >> Abir Majid (a Bahai) wrote: >> If all the trees of the earth were pens, and the >> oceans ink, with seven more to replenish them, >> the Words of God would never come to an end. >> Qur’an 31:27 >> >> Say: Though the sea became ink for the Words of >> my Lord, verily the sea would be used up before >> the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though >> We brought the like thereof to help. >> Qur'an 18:109 > >I've already answered this part of your posting in a >previous reply. This is the problem with considering >the verses of truth in isolation, instead of considering >the totality of revealed message in a coherent fashion... >I will repost the answer I already provided for your other >posting; Then, I, enshaAllah, follow with replies to your >other quotes below this section. > >===== Scroll Down for End of Repeated Portion ==== >=============== This part is Reposted ============= > >The Bahai teaching often puts forth these verses as evidence >that new Messengers will be commissioned to humanity. But, >in doing so, it has to ignoring the hundreds of other verses >and hadith which clearly give us the contrary information! >Could it be that Allah is the author of confusion? Could it >be that the few dozen quotes I recently posted from Quran and >all the hadith dealing with the subject should be ignored and >we should accept the Bahai interpretation of these verses >instead? > >I do not think so! Allah is the Merciful Creator who has >declared that His Message in Islam is Perfect, Final, and >Clear. Since He is not the author of confusion, the >interpretation of Bahais must be incorrect. Let's consider >the verses you posted. > >> If all the trees of the earth were pens, and the >> oceans ink, with seven more to replenish them, >> the Words of God would never come to an end. >> Qur’an 31:27 >> >> Say: Though the sea became ink for the Words of >> my Lord, verily the sea would be used up before >> the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though >> We brought the like thereof to help. >> Qur'an 18:109 > >1. Assuming Bahai interpretation to be correct; why do we > need to accept the view that "Word" means "Message" > (dialogue to human Messenger)? Why wouldn't it mean > a discussion with Angels or other beings? > > Since we are told to accept the revelations of Islam > (Quran and Sunnah) as a whole, it would be illogical to > accept the Bahai "interpretation" of these verses and > reject all the clear evidence to the contrary. We all > know that Allah Himself has warned us NOT to do so in > the holy Quran (3.7): > > "...But those in whose hearts is perversity follow > the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking > discord..." > > I suggest to you that Bahaullah either had no knowledge > of Islam or purposely tried to twist its teaching > seeking a personal advantage. A believer would not > reject clear text of revelation in favor of his own > interpretation of some allegorical passage. > >2. I do disagree with Bahai understanding of this verse. > Repeatedly, Allah has told us that the Prophet(SAW) was > given Quran and Wisdom (or knowledge) to understand and > explain it. We are clearly instructed to refer to Quran > itself and hadith for explanation of allegorical verses. > Finally, we are reminded that the true meaning of some > will never be know... > > My understanding of the verses you quoted, based on > clear passages of Quran and hadith, is that the Decrees, > Signs and Works (Creations) of Allah will never end. If > we were to try to make a complete list of Allah's > creation and decrees (assuming we were even aware of them), > we would exhaust our supplies before finishing our task. > Allah is infinity; He has no beginning and no End; how can > we describe His Decrees and Creations in a finite space? > > Allah is the Giver, the Sustainer, and the Provider; It > is He who controls the heavens and the earth and we are > all dependent upon his Decrees (Words) to live our lives. > So, it is accurate to say that the "Words" (Decrees) of > Allah will never end... > > Allah has told us that when He wills something, He says > "BE" and it is. Indeed, this is the "Word" of Allah > (i.e. His Decree, His Creation, His Work/Sign). For > instance, about the birth of Adam and Jesus(pbut), > Allah tells us: > > "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of > Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: > "Be". And he was." > (The holy Quran, 3:59) > > and Allah calls Jesus a "Word" from Him. > > "Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee > glad tidings of a WORD from Him: his name will be > Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this > world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those > nearest to Allah;" > (The holy Quran, 3:45) > > In the following verses, you can see the same meaning: > > "And they became divided only after Knowledge reached > them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. > Had it not been for a WORD that went forth before from > thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter > would have been settled between them: But truly those > who have inherited the Book after them are in > suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it." > (The holy Quran, 42:14) > > "If ye help not (your leader), (it is no matter): > for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers > drove him out: he had no more than one companion; > they two were in the cave, and he said to his > companion, "Have no fear, for Allah is with us": > then Allah SENT DOWN HIS PEACE UPON HIM, and > strengthened him WITH FORCES WHICH YE SAW NOT, > and humbled to the depths the word of the Unbelievers. > But the WORD of Allah is exalted to the heights: > for Allah is Exalted in might, Wise." > (The holy Quran, 9:40) > > At length, behold! there came Our command, and the > fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: > "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, > and your family - except those against whom the WORD > has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but > only a few believed with him. > (The holy Quran, 11.4) > > And Allah knows best. > > I hope you are beginning to see. Even if you disagree > with my understanding of these verses, still there in > no reason to accept the Bahai interpolation of the > word "Kalimah" and assume it means conversation with a > Messenger. It would be very dangerous to reject > clear statements of Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) and > follow conjecture... > >Also, I like to remind you of what you wrote earlier: > >> .... Otherwise how would He (exalted be His >> name), leave a job half done until hundreds, or >> thousands of years later (Astaghfurullah, I beg His >> forgiveness for the thought)? > >When it came down to it, Bahais decided that the "Word of >Allah" (the way he claimed to understand it) was going to >cease for a 1000 years! Isn't that a disgraceful thing >to say? Allah himself tells us that his "Kalimat" will >never end and Bahais like to stop his Decress for a 1000 >years!!! > >Dear Majid, during our lives, we will all meet many >"Bahaullahs"! > >His claims remind me of what I have heard many times from >those without faith. There are many who see the >prophets(pbut) (May Allah forgive) as "philosophers" or >"thinkers" who brought forth a way of life good for their >time - give or take a 1000 years. When they reach to this >conclusion, either they reject faith or they decide to >start a new (improved) movement and cash in... They have >faith on their lips, but not in their hearts. > > O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each > other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who > say "We believe" with their lips but whose HEARTS > HAVE NO FAITH;... > (The holy Quran, 5.41) > >I frankly do not understand how anyone could eject the clear >and coherent Message of Islam and accept any man-made faith >suffering from many fundamental flaws and contradictory >teachings. The stance of Bahaism that Islam is protected >but new Messengers will be sent is contradictory and will >never appeal to anyone with actual knowledge of Islam. >=================== End of Repost ====================== > >>> I wrote: >>> Woe that Day to the deniers (of Islam) >>> And when it is said to them: "Bow Down Yourself (Submit)!" >>> They bow not down. >>> Woe that Day to the deniers >>> Then, in what Hadith after this (the Quran) will >>> they believe. >>> (The holy Quran, 77.47-50) > >> You wrote: >> I bow down to God in submission many times every day. >> May He in His mercy accept it. > >Do you?! In Quran, we read that when Jesus(pbuh) came to >Children of Israel and they denied him, they became Kafiroon >(unbelievers), even though they were bowing down (in daily >prayers) to Allah (Quran, 2.89)... > (Also, read "God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAW)") > >Indeed, among the covenants taken from Muslims is that >we should hold fast to the revelations given to us in >Islam and that we should follow the commands of Allah: > > "..If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what > Allah hath revealed, they are Unbelievers." > (The holy Quran, 5.44) > >Those who follow false prophets have, in effect, ignored their >covenant with Allah and have raised their leaders to be their >gods. They refute the clear Word of Allah and make a mockery >of the truth: > > After them succeeded an (evil) generation: They > inherited the Book, but they chose (for themselves) > the vanities of this world, saying (for excuse): > "(Everything) will be forgiven us." (Even so), if > similar vanities came their way, they would (again) > seize them. Was not the covenant of the Book taken > from them, that they would not ascribe to Allah > anything but the truth? and they study what is in > the Book. But best for the righteous is the home > in the Hereafter. Will ye not understand? > (The holy Quran, 5.44) > >>> Verily in this (Qur'an) is a Message for people who >>> would (truly) worship Allah. >>> (The holy Quran, 21.106) >>> >>> And thus have We, by Our Command, sent inspiration to >>> thee: thou knewest not (before) what was Revelation, >>> and what was Faith; but We have made the (Qur'an) >>> a Light, wherewith We guide such of Our servants as >>> We will; and verily thou dost guide (men) to the >>> Straight Way,- >>> (The holy Quran, 42.52) >>> > >> Sadaqa’llahul Adhim (God verily said the truth) > >Islam is action, not mere words. Those who claim to believe >in Quran, yet reject the clear verses and orders contained >therein are in reality unbelievers. > > "They have "Obedience" on their lips; but when they > leave thee, a section of them Meditate all night on > THINGS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THOU TELLEST THEM. > But Allah records their nightly (plots): So keep > clear of them, and put thy trust in Allah, and enough > is Allah as a disposer of affairs." > (The holy Quran, 4.081) > >>> These are verses of the Qur'an,-a book that makes >>> (things) clear; >>> A GUIDE: and glad tidings for the believers,- >>> (The holy Quran, 27.1-2) >>> >>> And We have indeed made the Qur'an easy to understand >>> and remember: then is there any that will receive >>> admonition? >>> (The holy Quran, 54.40) >>> > >Are you following the same Guide as Muslims do? > > For me, I have been commanded to serve the Lord of > this city, Him Who has sanctified it and to Whom > (belong) all things: and I am commanded to be of > those who bow in Islam to Allah's Will,- > > And to rehearse the QURAN: and if any accept > guidance, they do it for the good of their own > souls, and if any stray, say: "I am only a Warner". > (The holy Quran, 27.91-92) > > So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted > My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow > me." And say to the People of the Book and to those > who are unlearned: "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" > If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they > turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in > Allah's sight are (all) His servants. > (The holy Quran, 3.20) > >> He it is Who has revealed the Book to you; some of its >> verses are decisive, they are the basis of the Book, >> and others are allegorical; then as for those in whose >> hearts there is perversity they follow the part of it >> which is allegorical, seeking to mislead and seeking to >> give it (their own) interpretation. but none knows its >> interpretation except Allah, and those who are firmly >> rooted in knowledge say: We believe in it, it is all >> from our Lord; and none do mind except those having >> understanding. >> Qur'an 3:7 > >Indeed! Then, why are the Bahais relying so much on their >unfounded "interpretation" of allegorical verses, while >their ignore the clear passages and the explanation of the >Messenger of Allah(SAAW)? > > "A. L. R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or > fundamental (of established meaning), further explained > in detail (in other places),- from One Who is Wise and > Well-acquainted (with all things): > > (It teacheth) that ye should worship none but Allah. > (Say): "Verily I am (sent) unto you from Him to warn > and to bring glad tidings: > > "(And to preach thus), 'Seek ye the forgiveness of your > Lord, and turn to Him in repentance; that He may grant > you enjoyment, good (and true), for a term appointed, > and bestow His abounding grace on all who abound in > merit! But if ye turn away, then I fear for you the > penalty of a great day: > > To Allah is your return, and He hath power over all > things.'" > (The Holy Quran, 11:1-4) > > > The Last Messenger of Allah(SAAW) said: > > "If anyone interprets the Book of Allah in the > light of his opinion even if he is right, he has > erred." > (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 25, Number 3644) > >>> Had We sent this as a Qur'an (in the language) other >>> than Arabic, they would have said: "Why are not its >>> verses explained in detail? What! (a Book) not in >>> Arabic and (a Messenger an Arab?" Say: "It is a >>> Guide and a Healing to those who believe; and for >>> those who believe not, there is a deafness in their >>> ears, and it is blindness in their (eyes): They are >>> (as it were) being called from a place far distant!" >>> (The holy Quran, 41.44) >>> >>> Thus have We revealed it to be a judgment of authority >>> in Arabic. Wert thou to follow their desires after the >>> knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou >>> find neither protector nor defender against Allah. >>> (The holy Quran, 13.37) >>> >>> (It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness >>> (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil. >>> (The holy Quran, 39.28) > >> The Holy Qur’an was revealed in Arabic because the >> Prophet (PBUH) and His immediate followers and early >> believers were Arabs. Still, even for the Arabs, the >> verses which are "mutashabihat" (allegorical, symbolic) >> are not easy to know the meanings of. And interpretation >> and clarification is left to God: > >It is true that the Prophet(SAAW) was an Arab. But, also >the Arabic language is a uniquely expressive and rich language, >which is still is used by millions of individuals. At the time >of the Prophet(SAAW), although mostly illiterate, Arabs had >excelled at composing and memorizing lenghty poetry. This is >the background in which the miracle and unique eloquence of >Quran becomes significant and we understand how thousands >were able to memorize Quran by heart and protect its message >throughout ages.... > >> [75:16-19 ]: Move not thy tongue concerning the >> (Qur'an) to make haste therewith. It is for Us to >> collect it and to promulgate it: But when We >> have promulgated it, follow thou its recital >> (as promulgated): Nay more, it is for Us to explain >> it (and make it clear): > >The Bahai interpretation is false (translation is not >that great either)! > > "Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - > and explained therein in detail some of the > warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or > that it may cause their remembrance (of Him). > > High above all is Allah, the King, the Truth! > Be not in haste with the Qur'an before its > revelation to thee is completed, but say, "O my > Lord! advance me in knowledge (of hadith)." > (The Holy Quran, 20:113-114) > >There are ahadith that explain to us the verse you >quoted. For instance: > > Narrated Ibn Abbas: > > (as regards) Allah's Statement: > > "Move not your tongue concerning (the Quran) to make > haste therewith." (75.16) > > When Gabriel revealed the Divine Inspiration in > Allah's Apostle , he (Allah's Apostle) moved his > tongue and lips, and that state used to be very > hard for him, and that movement indicated that > revelation was taking place. So Allah revealed > in Surat Al-Qiyama which begins: > > 'I do swear by the Day of Resurrection...' (75) > the Verses:-- > > 'Move not your tongue concerning (the Quran) to > make haste therewith. It is for Us to collect it > (Quran) in your mind, and give you the ability > to recite it by heart. (75.16-17) > > Ibn Abbas added: It is for Us to collect it (Qur'an) > (in your mind), and give you the ability to recite > it by heart means, "When We reveal it, listen. Then > it is for Us to explain it," means, 'It is for us to > explain it through your tongue.' So whenever Gabriel > came to Allah's Apostle ' he would keep quiet (and > listen), and when the Angel left, the Prophet > would recite that revelation as Allah promised him." > (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 451) > >The verse you quoted is one of the proofs in the holy Quran >that the Messenger's job was not solely to deliver Quran, >but also "its meaning", through his explanation, action, or >teachings. For instance, in so many places, we read that >"salat" is mandated on Muslims? But, where is "Salat" >described? How did the Prophet(SAAW) come to learn of >Salat? This was the "knowledge" (Wisdom) - the second form >of revelation - given to the Messenger which he taught >the believers. > > The Last Prophet of Alllah(SAAW) said: > > Beware! I have been given the Qur'an and something > like it (Sunnah), yet the time is coming when a man > replete on his couch will say: Keep to the Qur'an; > what you find in it to be permissible treat as > permissible, and what you find in it to be prohibited > treat as prohibited. Beware!.... > (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 40, Number 4587) > >Those interested can also read similar accounts at (2.129, >2.151, 16.44, 3.164, 62.2). Indeed, it was the role of the >Prophet(SAAW) to deliver these additional revelation and >make the message of Islam clear. Allah has warned the >believers not to follow in the footstep of prior people who >ignored the clear instruction and orders of their prophets >and invented a new religion for themselves: > > "For We have certainly sent unto them a Book, based > on knowledge (sunnah), which We explained in detail, > - a guide and a mercy to all who believe. > > Do they just wait for the final fulfillment of the > event? On the day the event is finally fulfilled, > those who disregarded it before will say: "The > messengers of our Lord did indeed bring true > (tidings). Have we no intercessors now to intercede > on our behalf? Or could we be sent back? then should > we behave differently from our behaviour in the past." > In fact they will have lost their souls, and the > things they invented will leave them in the lurch." > (The Holy Quran, 7:52-53) > >> [10:39-40]: Nay, they charge with falsehood that >> whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before >> the elucidation thereof hath reached them: >> thus did those before them make charges of falsehood: > >We should read the prior verses: > > "But most of them follow nothing but fancy: truly > fancy can be of no avail against truth. Verily > Allah is well aware of all that they do. > > This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other > than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of > (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller > explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt > - from the Lord of the worlds. > > Or do they say, "He forged it"? say: "Bring then > a Sura like unto it, and call (to your aid) anyone > you can besides Allah, if it be ye speak the truth!" > (The holy Quran, 10.36-38) > >Obviously, these verses are simply refuting those who rejected >the message of Quran - as it was being revealed - without >having heard the explanation and example of the Prophet(SAAW) >or having awaited for the signs of Allah to become manifest. >They, in effect, were hasty in rejecting the truth, when they >did not even understand what was being conveyed. They were >proud, followed their own conjecture, and were guided astray. > >> On the lighter side dear Kavosh (this is meant to >> be just humor, please don’t take it seriously); >> Could it be that because it’s in Arabic, it >> has been difficult for you to understand it? > >I appreciate your concern. Of course, we are all in need of >greater understanding and knowledge. But, I am always >reminded of the words of Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) that >we should remain humble and not be proud. All of us should >remember that the very individuals who documented the Arabic >language and grammer were devote Muslims who understood the >message of Islam, much like Muslims do todays. > >I hope that I will never read a verse and - based on some >prejudice - imagine to see something in it that contradicts >what hundreds of millions expert of Arabic language have >seen throughout history. That would be the quality of >arrogance which I pray Allah will spare me from. > >>> "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, >>> whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in >>> the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is >>> just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as >>> lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from >>> what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their >>> heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. >>> So it is those who BELIEVE IN HIM, HONOUR HIM, HELP >>> HIM, and FOLLOW THE LIGHT WHICH IS SENT DOWN WITH HIM,- >>> it is they who will prosper." >>> (The holy Quran, 7.157) > >> Amen. Sadaqa’llahul Adhim. Blessed is he who believes >> in God word as revealed in the Holy Qur’an and the >> other Holy Books. > >Please, read carefully again: > > "... BELIEVE IN HIM, HONOUR HIM, HELP HIM, and FOLLOW > THE LIGHT WHICH IS SENT DOWN WITH HIM..." > >Allah also told us of those who pretend to hear the >message, but really ignore it: > > Of them there are some who (pretend to) listen to > thee; but We have thrown veils on their hearts, So > they understand it not, and deafness in their ears; > if they saw every one of the signs, not they will > believe in them; in so much that when they come to > thee, they (but) dispute with thee; the Unbelievers > say: "These are nothing but tales of the ancients." > (The holy Quran, 6.25) > >There is no holy Book intact, except Quran. I hope this >explanation helps those misguided by the false claims of >Bahaism see the truth. Those who look for excuses to >reject the truth have Satan and will always find some >excuse to reject faith. >========================================================= > "Verily, this (Islam) is My way, leading straight: > follow it: follow not (other) paths: they will scatter > you about from His (great) path: thus doth He command > you. that ye may be righteous." > (The Holy Quran, 6.153) > > "So hold thou fast to the Revelation sent down to thee; > verily thou art on a Straight Way. The (revelation given > to you) is indeed the message, for thee and for thy > people; and soon shall ye (all) be brought to account." > (The Holy Quran, 43:43-44) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Completion and Perfection of Religion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Kavosh Soltani Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture .iranian Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 11:15 AM Subject: [Bahaism]: Completion and Perfection of Religion >Hi. > >> Kavosh Soltani wrote: >>> ... This day have those who reject faith given up all >>> hope of your religion: yet fear them not but fear Me. >>> This day have I PERFECTED your religion for you, >>> completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you >>> Islam as your religion... >>> (The holy Quran, 5.3) > >> Abir Majid wrote: >> And thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the >> interpretation of sayings and make His favor complete >> to you and to the children of Jacob, as He made it >> complete before to your fathers, Abraham and Isaac; >> surely your Lord is knowing, wise. >> Qur'an 12:6 >> >> Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing (Our favour) >> to those who would do right, and explaining all things >> in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might >> believe in the meeting with their Lord. >> Qur'an 6:154 >> >> Surely We have given to you a clear victory, that Allah >> may forgive your community (bani Isma’il) their past >> faults and those to follow and complete His favor to >> you and keep you on a right way, >> Qur'an 48:1-2 > >I have already mentioned that there are numerous (numbering >into hundreds) verses and hadith that in clear term tell us >that Muhammad(SAAW) was the Final Prophet/Messenger and that >the Message given to him is Completed, Perfected, Universal, >Protected, and Final. There are even verses and hadith which >clearly instruct those who claim to be followers of prior >Prophets to live up to their covenant and accept the deen >of Islam (they were clearly told of future Messenger). In >that light, no reasonable person should reject the clear >evidence and resort to imaginative thinking... > >Here, you have taken one of my numerous quotes, in isolation >from all the others, and are suggesting that because the >word "Complete" was used in conjunction to some other >prophets(pbut), we should accept that the verse (5:3) was >not unique to the Prophet of Islam(SAAW), turn a blind >eye to the rest of the evidence, and somehow accept the >Bahai stance that new Messengers will be commissioned to >humanity! > >But, Quran has clearly instructed the believers to accept >the entire message (Quran and Hadith) and not fall into the >trap of ignoring many clear verses in favor of personal >opinion. > >This would be indeed very dangerous in light of what I >quoted in prior postings. The fact that you ignored the >actual text of the very quotes you posted, also shows you >to have been hasty in your argument. Those who carefully >read the passages will immediately notice two things: > > 1. That none of your quotes tell us the Favor was both > "Perfected" and "Completed"; > > 2. That the secondary quotes actually tell us that the > message of these Prophets(pbuh) was completed for a > specific nation or a specific time period. Whereas, > the one in (5:3) are speaking to all "Believers" and > the humanity. > > Let's look at the text of your own quotes: > > Qur'an 12:6; > ============ > "... His favor complete to you and to the children > of Jacob..." > "...as He made it complete before to your fathers, > Abraham and Isaac..." > > Note that Quran clearly specifies who were benefited > and which nation was affected. > > Qur'an 6:154; > ============= > "...We gave Moses..." > > And was Moses sent to the entire humanity or just > to the Children of Israel? The answer is obvious. > > Qur'an 48:1-2; > ============== > "... may forgive your community (bani Isma’il)" > > Actually, this is a bad translation. A good one > would be: > > "Verily We have granted thee a manifest Victory: > > That Allah may forgive thee thy faults of the > past and those to follow (future faults); fulfill > His favour to thee; and guide thee on the Straight > Way;" (The holy Quran, 48:1-2) > > [This is a reference to the Hudibiyah Truce that most > companions viewed as shameful. However, Allah told > them that it was a "Victory". Indeed, within a few > years, the truth of the matter became apparent to all. > Also, "the faults" of the Prophets should not be seen > as those of other humans. Prophets are held at a much > higher standard. Read: 38:24-25] > > However, even if we take your translation (rejecting > unfounded Bahai addition in parenthesis), we do not see > anything that contradicts (5:3) or the assertion of > Muslims that Islam in the Final Message. > > The community of Muhammad(SAAW) were not the Bani Ismail > or the Arabs, but the entire humanity. I know that > Bahais and Qadianis (Ahmadis) often advance such weak > misrepresentation of Islamic teachings to justify their > position, but I would not have expected anyone do so just > after I quoted dozens of verses attesting to the contrary > a couple of days ago. Here are just a few to refresh your > memory: > > O MANKIND! The Messenger hath come to you in truth > from Allah: believe in him: It is best for you. But > if ye reject Faith, to Allah belong all things in > the heavens and on earth: And Allah is All-knowing, > All-wise. > (The holy Quran, 4.170) > > Say: "O MANKIND! I am sent unto you all, as the > Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion > of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but > He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So > believe in Allah and His Messenger, the Unlettered > Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: > FOLLOW HIM that (so) ye may be guided." > (The holy Quran, 7.158) > > And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the > WORLDS. > (The holy Quran, 21.107) > > We have not sent thee but as a UNIVERSAL (Messenger) > to men, giving them glad tidings, and warning them > (against sin), but most men understand not. > (The holy Quran, 34.28) > > O MANKIND! Muhammad has no sons among ye men, but > verily, he is the Apostle of God and the last in > the line of Prophets. And God is Aware of everything. > (The Holy Quran, 33:40) > >So, the religion sent by Muhammad(SAAW) was the culmination >of all prior Messages, was Perfect, Completed, Universal, >protected, and basis of guidance for all people and nations. > >> I think dear Kavosh that a merciful and Just God >> perfects and completes His religion and His favor for >> every people (ummah), and every time, until the next >> religion comes. Otherwise how would He (exalted be His >> name), leave a job half done until hundreds, or >> thousands of years later (Astaghfurullah, I beg His >> forgiveness for the thought)? On the other hand, >> there will never be an end to His Words and Revelation. > >As a Muslim, one of the things I am proud of saying is that >I believe in the unseen (Al-Qaib). For me, there is no "I >think", when Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) have left such an >extensive body of proof. If I were to start imagining things, >I might just arrive to a baseless and incoherent position as >that advanced by Bahaism and Qadianism (Ahmadis) and guide >myself astray, as prior nations did. > >I hope you don't misunderstand, but this line of "thinking" >is rejected, in the Light of what Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) >have so clearly ordained. > >Allah has completed His Religion for the Entire Humanity >in Islam. > >> If all the trees of the earth were pens, and the >> oceans ink, with seven more to replenish them, >> the Words of God would never come to an end. >> Qur’an 31:27 >> >> Say: Though the sea became ink for the Words of >> my Lord, verily the sea would be used up before >> the words of my Lord were exhausted, even though >> We brought the like thereof to help. >> Qur'an 18:109 > >The Bahai teaching often puts forth these verses as evidence >that new Messengers will be commissioned to humanity. But, >in doing so, it has to ignoring the hundreds of other verses >and hadith which clearly give us the contrary information! >Could it be that Allah is the author of confusion? Could it >be that the few dozen quotes I recently posted from Quran and >all the hadith dealing with the subject should be ignored and >we should accept the Bahai interpretation of these verses >instead? > >I do not think so! Allah is the Merciful Creator who has >declared that His Message in Islam is Perfect, Final, and >Clear. Since He is not the author of confusion, the >interpretation of Bahais must be incorrect. Let's consider >the verses you posted. > >1. Assuming Bahai interpretation to be correct; why do we > need to accept the view that "Word" means "Message" > (dialogue to human Messenger)? Why wouldn't it mean > a discussion with Angels or other beings? > > Since we are told to accept the revelations of Islam > (Quran and Sunnah) as a whole, it would be illogical to > accept the Bahai "interpretation" of these verses and > reject all the clear evidence to the contrary. We all > know that Allah Himself has warned us NOT to do so in > the holy Quran (3.7): > > "...But those in whose hearts is perversity follow > the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking > discord..." > > I suggest to you that Bahaullah either had no knowledge > of Islam or purposely tried to twist its teaching > seeking a personal advantage. A believer would not > reject clear text of revelation in favor of his own > interpretation of some allegorical passage. > >2. I do disagree with Bahai understanding of this verse. > Repeatedly, Allah has told us that the Prophet(SAW) was > given Quran and Wisdom (or knowledge) to understand and > explain it. We are clearly instructed to refer to Quran > itself and hadith for explanation of allegorical verses. > Finally, we are reminded that the true meaning of some > will never be know... > > My understanding of the verses you quoted, based on > clear passages of Quran and hadith, is that the Decrees, > Signs and Works (Creations) of Allah will never end. If > we were to try to make a complete list of Allah's > creation and decrees (assuming we were even aware of them), > we would exhaust our supplies before finishing our task. > Allah is infinity; He has no beginning and no End; how can > we describe His Decrees and Creations in a finite space? > > Allah is the Giver, the Sustainer, and the Provider; It > is He who controls the heavens and the earth and we are > all dependent upon his Decrees (Words) to live our lives. > So, it is accurate to say that the "Words" (Decrees) of > Allah will never end... > > Allah has told us that when He wills something, He says > "BE" and it is. Indeed, this is the "Word" of Allah > (i.e. His Decree, His Creation, His Work/Sign). For > instance, about the birth of Adam and Jesus(pbut), > Allah tells us: > > "The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of > Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: > "Be". And he was." > (The holy Quran, 3:59) > > and Allah calls Jesus a "Word" from Him. > > "Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee > glad tidings of a WORD from Him: his name will be > Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this > world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those > nearest to Allah;" > (The holy Quran, 3:45) > > In the following verses, you can see the same meaning: > > "And they became divided only after Knowledge reached > them,- through selfish envy as between themselves. > Had it not been for a WORD that went forth before from > thy Lord, (tending) to a Term appointed, the matter > would have been settled between them: But truly those > who have inherited the Book after them are in > suspicious (disquieting) doubt concerning it." > (The holy Quran, 42:14) > > "If ye help not (your leader), (it is no matter): > for Allah did indeed help him, when the Unbelievers > drove him out: he had no more than one companion; > they two were in the cave, and he said to his > companion, "Have no fear, for Allah is with us": > then Allah SENT DOWN HIS PEACE UPON HIM, and > strengthened him WITH FORCES WHICH YE SAW NOT, > and humbled to the depths the word of the Unbelievers. > But the WORD of Allah is exalted to the heights: > for Allah is Exalted in might, Wise." > (The holy Quran, 9:40) > > At length, behold! there came Our command, and the > fountains of the earth gushed forth! We said: > "Embark therein, of each kind two, male and female, > and your family - except those against whom the WORD > has already gone forth,- and the Believers." but > only a few believed with him. > (The holy Quran, 11.4) > > And Allah knows best. > > I hope you are beginning to see. Even if you disagree > with my understanding of these verses, still there in > no reason to accept the Bahai interpolation of the > word "Kalimah" and assume it means conversation with a > Messenger. It would be very dangerous to reject > clear statements of Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) and > follow conjecture... > >Also, I like to remind you of what you wrote earlier: > >> .... Otherwise how would He (exalted be His >> name), leave a job half done until hundreds, or >> thousands of years later (Astaghfurullah, I beg His >> forgiveness for the thought)? > >When it came down to it, Bahais decided that the "Word of >Allah" (the way he claimed to understand it) was going to >cease for a 1000 years! Isn't that a disgraceful thing >to say? Allah himself tells us that his "Kalimat" will >never end and Bahais like to stop his Decress for a 1000 >years!!! > >Dear Majid, during our lives, we will all meet many >"Bahaullahs"! > >His claims remind me of what I have heard many times from >those without faith. There are many who see the >prophets(pbut) (May Allah forgive) as "philosophers" or >"thinkers" who brought forth a way of life good for their >time - give or take a 1000 years. When they reach to this >conclusion, either they reject faith or they decide to >start a new (improved) movement and cash in... They have >faith on their lips, but not in their hearts. > > O Messenger! let not those grieve thee, who race each > other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who > say "We believe" with their lips but whose HEARTS > HAVE NO FAITH;... > (The holy Quran, 5.41) > >I frankly do not understand how anyone could eject the clear >and coherent Message of Islam and accept any man-made faith >suffering from many fundamental flaws and contradictory >teachings. The stance of Bahaism that Islam is protected >but new Messengers will be sent is contradictory and will >never appeal to anyone with actual knowledge of Islam. > >I hope this helps those sincerely looking for the truth. >Those who truly believe in Allah and recognize the Divinity >of Islam. >======================================================== > The Last Messenger of Allah(SAAW) said: > > "Nothing is left of the prophetism except Al-Mubashshirat." > They asked, "What are Al-Mubashshirat?" He replied, > "The good dreams that come true (that conveys glad tidings)." > (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 119) > > "All that will be left of prophecy after me are the > mubashshirat." They said, "What are the mubashshirat, > Messenger of Allah?" He said, "The true dream which > a man who is salih sees - or which is shown to him - > is a forty-sixth part of prophecy." > (Malik's Muwatta, Book 52, Number 52.1.3) > > "When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) finished > the dawn prayer, he would ask: Did any of you have a > dream last night? And he said: All that is left of > Prophecy after me is a good vision." > (Abu Dawu, Book 41, No. 4999) > > -------------------------------------------------- > > Anas reported that after that death of Allah's > Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) AbuBakr said to Umar: > Let us visit Umm Ayman as Allah's Messenger > (peace_be_upon_him) used to visit her. As we came > to her, she wept. They (AbuBakr and Umar) said to her: > What makes you weep? What is in store (in the next world) > for Allah's Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) is better than > (this worldly life). She said: I weep not because I am > ignorant of the fact that what is in store for Allah's > Messenger (peace_be_upon_him) (in the next world) is > better than (this world), but I weep because the > revelation which came from the Heaven has ceased > to come. This moved both of them to tears and they > began to weep along with her. > (Sahih Muslim, Book 30, Number 6009) > > "People were (sometimes) judged by the revealing of a > Divine Inspiration during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle > but now there is no longer any more (new revelation). > Now we judge you by the deeds you practice publicly, so > we will trust and favor the one who does good deeds in > front of us, and we will not call him to account about > what he is really doing in secret, for Allah will judge > him for that; but we will not trust or believe the one > who presents to us with an evil deed even if he claims > that his intentions were good." > (Bukhari, Vol. 3, No. 809) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Scott P. Duncan Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 1:10 PM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) >AltWay wrote: > >> In article <6h9k7p$3ug$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>, "Robert Little" >> wrote: >> >> > I want to take the opportunity to tell you how much I appreciate all that >> > you have taught me. I knew in a general way that Islam rose and fell, as >> > have all civilizations, and as is the current civilization of >> > nation-states, dominated by the "west". But your insights as to how it >> > came about were valuable to me, and I hope to the others who visit here. >> >> Dear Robert, >> Thankyou for your kind words. It is refreshing to find someone on this site >> from another religion who is not hostile, but open to reasonable ideas. > >Indeed, for me, one of the things about the Baha'i Faith that I have >alwaysappreciated has been how it opened the door for me to try to learn about > >other religions, in particular, Islam, and has help shelter me from the hatred > >so many Westerners seem to have developed for Muslims and Islam. Being >raised as Christian in the USA and having gone through the school system >here, bloodshed, slaughter, and the Crusades are the only image of Islam >I could dredge up from my childhood and teen years. But the Faith helped >clear up the issues of multiple messengers, multiple books, and multiple >religions in a climate of animosity when the idea of one God (or at least >one universal spirit) seemed so central to all of them. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:33 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture .iranian Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 6:00 PM Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims >Kind Sir: > >I wish to ask you a question: > >If a Jew, 2000 years ago, were loyal to His/her Lord, then would he not >accept the Messiah? Would that not be the only way for him/her to be >obedient to Moses? It is then logical to say that the Jew who accepts Christ >is in fact a true Jew, a true follower of Moses. And one could even go so >far as to say that the Jew who rejected the Messiah, actually was failing >his/her prime obligation, and was not therefore obedient to Moses, not >truely a Jew. > >What then of the follower of Muhammad, who fails his/her obligation to >accept the Mahdi (or return of Christ, or the 12th Imam)? What should the >believer say to the one who has rejected? > >One final thing. The name of this Faith is "Baha'i". The Baha'i Faith is >legally recognized by virtually every government on the planet, and has >official status with the United Nations. Should you wish to travel to the >Holy Land, and visit the Mountain of God, (Sharon, Carmel, O Zion), there >you will find the largest single green area in the country of Israel - the >Baha'i Gardens and Shrines. Should you wish to travel to virtually any part >of the world, there you will find the smiling faces of the followers of >Baha'u'llah, who will greet you with love and with respect. They will not >purposely say or do anything offensive to anyone. They are lovers of God, of >humanity. Please, when you refer to this Faith, use the correct form of >Baha'i. > >Respectfully, > >Robert A. Little >> >>> Abir Majid >>> Dear Kavosh, you and I do not disagree on the finality >>> of prophethood but on the finality of revelation. Let >>> not this difference of belief become a cause for hatred. > > >(snip) > >>Allah forgives those who commit such grave sins in ignorance, >>but those who insist on their way, after the truth has been >>conveyed to them will be held accountable for their decision >>and their arrogance. >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: makelist.com I hope moving the bahai-faith list here will prove beneficial to all. For me, the greatest advantage ought to be less involvement on my part in fiddling around with the technical side of things.... What little I have had to do during the last several days has been much easier than at coollist.com. I would think many other people will find the email subscription and archive useful. Again, I'm particularly interested in the fact people can post without be subscribed members so that perhaps I won't have to forward so much from alt.religion.bahai itself. Posters can just "cc" this list. 7 people are now subscribed here with 11 invitations outstanding. Has anyone had any trouble switching over to here? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:43 AM Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com switch I hope moving the bahai-faith list here will prove beneficial to all. For me, the greatest advantage ought to be less involvement on my part in fiddling around with the technical side of things.... What little I have had to do during the last several days has been much easier than at coollist.com. I would think many other people will find the email subscription and archive useful. Again, I'm particularly interested in the fact people can post without be subscribed members so that perhaps I won't have to forward so much from alt.religion.bahai itself. Posters can just "cc" this list. 7 people are now subscribed here with 11 invitations outstanding. Has anyone had any trouble switching over to here? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:54 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Children of Adam Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Shahid Aziz Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:29 AM Subject: Re: Children of Adam > >Abir Majid wrote in message <353124C0.3F90@geocities.com>... >>O children of Adam! When Messengers come to you from among you, who >>convey my verses, then those who take heed and amend will have neither >>fear nor regret. >> Qur’an 7:35 >> >>Does this verse addressing the children of Adam include the Muslims? It >>would seem this way: > > >If this includes all religions, does it mean that Prophets and messengers >can appear amongst Christians, Hindus, etc as well as Mirza Ghulam Ahmad >sahib appearing amongst the Muslims? Will your jamaat then accept the leader >of Mormons and his successors as prophets, as they claim to be, in >accordance with this verse? > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:55 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Completion and Perfection of Religion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Shahid Aziz Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, April 18, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: Re: Completion and Perfection of Religion > >>So, notwithstanding verses 7}35, 31}27, 18}109, 33}8, 3}81-82 and >>hundreds of others, you have decided that God has nothing more to say my >>friend? >>-- >So every one Allah sends his revelation to or speaks to becomes a prophet, >do they? So Mary, mother of Jesus, must have been a prophetess because God >spoke to her. The same applies to mother of Moses. I suppose the honey bee >must also be a prophet because the Holy Quran tells us that God sent His >revelation to the honey bee! >>------------------------------------------------ >>Abir Majid >>http}//members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >>http}//pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >>e-mail} abirm@geocities.com > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:55 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Completion and Perfection of Religion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Completion and Perfection of Religion >Is this how Allah would have you speak? Are you not required to mirror forth >the qualities and attributes of God? > >Say: O people! Withhold not from yourselves the grace of God and His mercy. >Whoso whithholdeth himself therefrom is indeed in grievous loss. What, O >people! Do ye worship the dust, and turn away from your Lord, the Gracious, >the All-Bountiful? Fear ye God, and be not of those who perish. Say: The >Book of God hath been sent down in the form of this Youth. Hallowed, >therefore, be God, the most excellent of makers! Take ye good heed, O >peoples of the world, lest ye flee from His face. Nay, make haste to attain >His presence, and be of them that have returned unto Him. Pray to be >forgiven, O people, for having failed in your duty towards God, and for >having trespassed against His Cause, and be not of the foolish. He it is Who >hath created you; He it is Who hath nourished your souls through His Cause, >and enabled you to recognize Him Who is the Almighty, the Most Exalted, the >All-Knowing. He it is Who hath unveiled to your eyes the treasures of His >knowledge, and caused you to ascend unto the heaven of certitude - the >certitude of His resistless, His irrefutable, and most exalted Faith. Beware >that ye do not deprive yourselves of the grace of God, that ye do not bring >to naught your works, and do not repudiate the truth of this most manifest, >this lofty, this shining, and glorious Revelation. Judge ye fairly the >Cause of God, your Creator, and behold that which hath been sent down from >the Throne on high, and meditate thereon with innocent and sanctified >hearts. Then will the truth of this Cause appear unto you as manifest as the >sun in its noon-tide glory. Then will ye be of them that have believed in >Him. > >Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own >Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to >recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath >revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of >His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to >recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His >testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. >He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He test a soul beyond >its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful. > >(Baha'u'llah, Baha'i World Faith, Pg. 33-34) > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little >Shahid Aziz wrote in message <6ha73h$nk3$1@heliodor.xara.net>... >> >>>So, notwithstanding verses 7}35, 31}27, 18}109, 33}8, 3}81-82 and >>>hundreds of others, you have decided that God has nothing more to say my >>>friend? >>>-- >>So every one Allah sends his revelation to or speaks to becomes a prophet, >>do they? So Mary, mother of Jesus, must have been a prophetess because God >>spoke to her. The same applies to mother of Moses. I suppose the honey bee >>must also be a prophet because the Holy Quran tells us that God sent His >>revelation to the honey bee! >>>------------------------------------------------ >>>Abir Majid >>>http}//members.tripod.com/~abirm/ >>>http}//pages.prodigy.com/prophecy_fulfilled >>>e-mail} abirm@geocities.com >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:56 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 19, 1998 1:37 PM Subject: Re: God's Covenant with Prophet Muhammad (SAAWS) > >AltWay wrote in message ... >>In article <35395311.6D2@geocities.com>, Abir Majid >>wrote: >> "Make no search for water. But find thirst, And water from the very >> ground will burst." >> >> "and I was thinking that unless a lover yearns and longs for the >>beloved, >> he/she would not go out searching. >> >>Reply :- >>Excellent quote and completely correct. But there is another side to it. >>Excessive desire or love leads to exaggeration, illusion and seeing things >>that are not there. >> > >This brings to mind the story of Magnun and Layli'. > >One must judge of search by the standard of the Majnun (literally, insane) >of Love. It is related that one day they came upon Majnun sifting the dust, >and his tears flowing down. They said, "What doest thou?" He said, "I seek >for Layli'." They cried, "Alas for thee! Layli' is of pure spirit, and thou >seekest her in the dust!" He said, "I seek here everywhere; haply somewhere >I shall find her." >>Reply :- >>Yes I had noted and acknowledged that Bahai makes explicit certain ideas >>which are implicit in Islam, and that muslims have departed from Islam. >> >>I was, however, wondering whether it required a Prophet to do this. Whether >>some saintly reformers could not do this. In the West all the above were >>achieved to an extent without a Prophet, but by the force of circumstances >>alone. >> >>But then we agree that Prophethood has ended with Muhammad (S.A.W). So >what >>do we call Baha'ulla? He appears to be described as more than that, even >>more than Jesus who was the "Son", while he is the "father". You will >recall >>that in Islam Allah is One and no such distinction of parts is made. Are we >>returning to Ancient Egyptian mythology? > > >To each people have been given prophecies. These prophecies, as all their >Teachings, were given in a form suitable to the level of understanding of >that age. Thus, Jews were told of the "Lord of Hosts". To me, today, this >conjures up an image of a mighty leader with hosts of warriers, something >perhaps, that that ancient people could relate to. Later, Christians were >told of the Return, in the Station of the Father. This was something they >could understand. This meant to them that when God appeared once again in >human form, the Message would be weightier. I believe that God speaks to >each age, and that when He reappears, He brings with Him new knowledge, >which had not existed previously. In the time of Muhammad, the people were >more advanced, and could understand that God is not three, or divisible in >parts. That people did not need the parables that Christians required. > >I may have said this before, but I like it: > >We can liken God to the sun, and the days of the week, with their variable >names and times as the Manifestations, or Prophets. Monday is not Tuesday, >yet it is. Wednesday is different from Thursday, yet it isn't. The reality >is the light that streams from the sun, which gives life to all. The name >the light is called is temporary, and changeable, but the light, which is >separate from the sun, is eternal. The sun, were it to descend to earth, >would of course destroy it. The light is a creation of the sun, a >manifestation of the sun. We ought to love the light, to follow the light, >rather than worry about names. > >Therefore, I think it would not be possible to reform or remake unless there >were new knowledge with which to do it. > >It is sort of like an old house, which is too small for the people who need >to take shelter in it. It can be patched and repaired, but it will still be >inadequate. What is needed are blueprints and materials for a larger house, >that will house all. > >With Respect, > >Robert A. Little >> >>H.S.Aziz >> >>-- >> _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >>|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >>| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >>_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >>______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 19, 1998 8:57 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <353A98F0.142DCFC3@erols.com>... >Robert Little wrote: >> >> Kind Sir: > >Hello. > >>..What then of the follower of Muhammad, who fails his/her obligation >> to accept the Mahdi (or return of Christ, or the 12th Imam)? What >> should the believer say to the one who has rejected? > >Your analogy is faulty. Mahdi is going to be a righteous Muslim >who will apply the laws of Islam. As you might know (or you can >read in my other postings on this issue), the hadith about Mahdi >are extensive and give us much detail about his advent. Neither >Bab nor Bahaullah nor anyone else has fulfilled the prophecies >(there have been many other claimants, as well). We do not >misunderstand the prophecies, as I have shown elsewhere... > >Allah has told us that Islam is His Final and Perfected religion >and that anyone who knowingly does not follow its way of life is >disobeying Him. When Mahdi comes, he will not abrogate the >laws of Islam or create a new religion. He will simply live, >teach, and propagate the perfect religion of Allah. This is not >what Bab and Bahaullah did... Anyone who abrogates the sharia >of Islam or plays with the word of Allah and His Messenger(SAAW) >has proven to be an impostor (even Jesus(pbuh) said the laws of >Allah had to be upheld for ever - but Bab/Bahaullah did not). > >No Muslim who lives or wants to live in accordance with Islam >has any reason to reject Mahdi or Messiah, as they will do what >we all hope every Muslim ruler to do - practice Islam. Finally, >Mahdi and Messiah [Jesus(pbuh)] are two different individuals - >please refer to my other posting on this issue. > >> One final thing. The name of this Faith is "Baha'i". The Baha'i Faith is >> legally recognized by virtually every government on the planet, and has >> official status with the United Nations. > >United Nations is a man-made organization with no Divine guidance >or authority. Please do not allow yourself to be confused, UN is >not Allah, nor does it represent the will of Allah. > >The Divine position of Islam is absolutely clear: Both Bab and >Bahaullah were false claimants prophesied by the Messenger of >Allah(SAAW). Bab claimed to be Mahdi and then Allah; Bahaullah >claimed to be Messiah, a Prophet/Messenger, and a reincarnation >of Allah. They both claimed to have received revelations which >were basis of guidance for humanity. Each one of these claims >is rejected on basis of hundreds of verses of Quran and authentic >teachings of the Last Messenger of Allah(SAAW)... > >Is it wise for you to accept "Mahdi will come", but reject hundreds >of hadith describing what he and Messiah will do? Is it wise to >reject the very words of Allah in Quran and the teachings of >Muhammad(SAAW) about Finality and Perfection of Islam? Is it >prudent to turn a blind eye to the warnings of the Messenger of >Allah(SAAW) about false pretenders who will appear in sheepish >clothing? What do you think Allah thinks about those who selectively >accept whichever part of revelation they like and reject the rest? > >> Should you wish to travel to the Holy Land, and visit the Mountain of God, > >The zionist government has restrictions on both Muslims and Christians. >Isn't it amazing that the government of Israel has prohibited, >oppressed, and opposed Muslims and Christians for over half a century, >while they have supported Bahaism and Qadianism? Why do you think? > >Do you think they believe Allah grades our action and faith on a curve?! > >Those who do not live in US might not understand this, so allow me to >elaborate. Let's say a professor in University takes an exame with 10 >questions, each worth 10 points (total of 100). And let's say that >anyone with a score below 50 will fail... In US, may professors use >a curve, if everyone does poorly. So, if no one gets over 70, then >the professor will lower his failing grade to 35. But, if there are >a couple of trouble makers who earn 100s, the professor will fail >everyone who earned a score below 70... > >Do you suppose this is what the "chosen people" of Israel have in mind? >They oppose the religions whose followers may put them to shame in front >of Allah, while they try to promote man-made faiths, whose followers >(they believe) will be completely bankrupt on the Day of Judgment... >That way, they figure, even if they adhere 20% to the laws of Moses, >they will do much better than all the atheists, Bahais, and Qadianis!! > >This somewhat reminds me of the story of Satan: once he was cursed, >he propmised that he will attack man from every direction and with >every "attractive" argument; anything to lead them astray and prove >himself to be better... > >> (Sharon, Carmel, O Zion), there you will find the largest single green >> area in the country of Israel - the Baha'i Gardens and Shrines. > >I'm very happy for you and Bahais to have such a beautiful garden in >Israel. If you like to see green gardens and enjoy this life to the >fullest, may I suggest Disney World in Florida? There are also many >parks made by atheists and seculars which are very attrative and I >am certain you will like. If you like companionship of people who >share your way of life, I am sure the pagans of Arabia, the nazis, >and the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh, and others also liked >their own way of lives... They all lived the way they liked; but not >the way God wanted them to live... > >However, if you like the life of the hereafter, I suggest that you >sincerely reconsider the very foundation of your faith. Think about >the fact that Mahdi and Messiah are supposed to be Muslims and that >Bab's and Bahaullah's claims were initially directed toward uninformed >Muslim masses. This is why Muslims can point out huge problems and >inconsistencies in the claims and the propaganda material of Bahai >scholars. Indeed, the work of man is never perfect. > >Islam is the Last Message to humanity. > >> Should you wish to travel to virtually any part of the world, there you >> will find the smiling faces of the followers of Baha'u'llah, who will greet >> you with love and with respect. They will not purposely say or do anything >> offensive to anyone. > >I'm glad to hear this. You might like to know that Muslims take a >great offense at the claims of Bahaism. Please do not misunderstand >me; there is no compulsion in religion and if you want to worship >Bahaullah or Bab (follow their teachings instead of that of Allah), >you are free to do so. But, Muslims can not and will not ever allow >anyone to launch such an obvious and blatant attacks against the Perfect >religion of Allah. The very foundation of Bahaism, as we have seen, >is rejected by hundreds of clear verses of Quran and Hadith. Anytime >a Bahai claims that their faith is supported by Islam, they are >offending Muslims everywhere... There is simply no argument they >can offer in support of their claims. > >If Bahais were just following their own "faith", Muslims would simply >feel sad and provide consul to them, but we would stop there. >Unfortunately, Bahais do not do so. Even after ample proof has been >shown (and it has been shown repeatedly for decades), Bahaism still >advances its attack against the teachings of Islam and Muslims >everywhere. They misrepresent Islam and offend Muslims with their >false claims... > >This is not appreciated and this is why Muslims take time from their >busy lives to expose the falsehood of Bahaism... > >I'm glad to hear that you do not mean to offend anyone. Kindly, next >time you are in Israel, enjoying your garden, drop by your leadership >and speak to them in a disappointed way. Tell them that all the >propaganda material they have published and provided their unsuspecting >membership is utter lies. Sound outraged! Tell them you do not >approve of their falsehood and their attack on religion of others. > >Tell them, their arguments against Muslims are without merit, because >not only they are not based on Quran and hadith, but also they are >strongly rejected by hundreds of arguments from the authentic sources >of Islamic knowledge... Kindly, tell them, that Islam is the Perfect >religion of Allah that they can not attack with their falsehood and >that Muslims are becoming more educated and will not fall for their >games... > >Please, tell them that you refuse to spread their falsehood and demand >that they immediately cease publishing such material... Tell them that >their own action and their false literature is what has made Muslims >very unhappy with them. Tell them that no fair minded person will >have no doubt that they have been purposely offending Muslims, our >intelligence, and our Creator. > >When I do see an official public apology and a permanent cessation >of their attack against Islam, then I believe the claim that Bahais >do not mean to offend others. > > "Whoever receives guidance, receives it for his own benefit; > whoever goes astray does so to his own loss. No bearer of > burdens can bear the burden of another, nor would We visit > with Our Wrath until We had sent a messenger." > (The Holy Quran, Al-Isra, 17:15) > >The Bahais who have read my replies to their arguments against >Islam have received the truth. They can accept it for what it >is worth and amend their ways, or they can insist on their ways >and advance more excuses and false arguments... As Allah has >told us, those who want guidance will receive it; those who are >impressed by the allures of this world (gardens and man-made >talk) are left to enjoy those for a short while... > >Your soul and your destiny is in your own hands. > >Regards. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:07 AM Subject: Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting Has anyone else other than Mark Foster and myself attempted to post to bahai-faith@makelist.com? -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & web subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com Please consider sending a courtesy copy "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com when posting to alt.religion.bahai or to Bahai topics on talk.religion.bahai. That would ensure people who have only email capabilities would still be able to follow along with the discussion. I've been forwarding messages for weeks to the list's first version on coollist.com, which has been moved entirely to makelist.com--a very laborious task I hope now to be able to forego..... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com Please consider sending a courtesy copy "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com when posting to alt.religion.bahai or to Bahai topics on talk.religion.bahai. That would ensure people who have only email capabilities would still be able to follow along with the discussion. I've been forwarding messages for weeks to the list's first version on coollist.com, which has been moved entirely to makelist.com--a very laborious task I hope now to be able to forego..... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:23 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert Little wrote in message <6hesds$d38$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Kind Sir: > >You have taken the time to read my words, and found them wanting. I then >pass on to you the words of Baha'u'llah, the Glory of God: > >"Consider the past. How many, both high and low, have, at all times, >yearningly awaited the advent of the Manifestations of God in the sanctified >persons of His chosen Ones. How often have they expected His coming, how >frequently have they prayed that the breeze of Divine mercy might blow, and >the promised Beauty step forth from behind the veil of concealment, and be >made manifest to all the world. And whensoever the portals of grace did >open, and the clouds of divine bounty did rain upon mankind, and the light >of the Unseen did shine above the horizon of celestial might, they all >denied Him, and turned away from His face - the face of God Himself . . ." > >"Reflect, what could have been the motive for such deeds? What could have >prompted such behavior towards the Revealers of the beauty of the >All-Glorious? Whatever in days gone by hath been the cause of the denial and >opposition of those people hath now led to the perversity of the people of >this age. To maintain that the testimony of Providence was incomplete, that >it hath therefore been the cause of the denial of the people, is but open >blasphemy. How far from the grace of the All-Bountiful and from His loving >providence and tender mercies it is to single out a soul from amongst all >men and for the guidance of His creatures, and, on one hand, to whithhold >from Him the full measure of His divine testimony, and, on the other, >inflict severe retribution on His people for having turned away from His >Chosen One! Nay, the manifold bounties of the Lord of all beings have, at >all times, through the Manifestations of His Divine Essence, encompassed the >earth and all that dwell therein. Not for a moment hath His grace been >withheld, nor have the showers of His loving-kindness ceased to rain upon >mankind. Consequently, such behavior can be attributed to naught save the >petty-mindedness of such souls as tread the valley of arrogance and pride, >are lost in the wilds of remoteness, walk in the ways of their idle fancy, >and follow the dictates of the leaders of the faith. Their chief concern is >mere opposition; their sole desire is to ignore the truth. Unto every >discerning observer it is evident and manifest that had these people in the >days of each of the Manifestations of the Sun of Truth sanctified their >eyes, their ears, and their hearts from whatever they had seen, heard, and >felt, they surely would not have been deprived of beholding the beauty of >God, nor strayed far from the habitations of glory. But, having weighed the >testimony of God by the standard of their own knowledge, gleaned from the >teachings of the leaders of their faith, and found it at variance with their >limited understanding, they arose to perpetrate such unseemly acts. . ." > >O Thou the Glory of the Most Glorious! > >Robert A. Little > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:27 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com FYI -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com >Please consider sending a courtesy copy "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com >when posting to alt.religion.bahai or to Bahai topics on >talk.religion.bahai. >That would ensure people who have only email capabilities would still be >able to follow along with the discussion. > >I've been forwarding messages for weeks to the list's first version on >coollist.com, which has been moved entirely to makelist.com--a very >laborious task I hope now to be able to forego..... > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:23 AM To: pierceed@csus.edu Subject: Re: fwd: failure notice (bahai-faith@makelist.com) Thanks for the test. I'll see if I can figure it out and get it working right. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:35 PM Subject: fwd: failure notice (bahai-faith@makelist.com) Looks like it won't work. EP ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 From: MAILER-DAEMON@findmail.com To: PIERCEED@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu Subject: failure notice Hi. This is the qmail-send program at findmail.com. I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. : Sorry, you are not allowed to post to this mailing list. Please contact bahai-faith-owner@makelist.com. --- Below this line is a copy of the message. Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9879 invoked by uid 7770); 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 Received: from csus.edu (130.86.90.1) by 209.185.96.136 with SMTP; 20 Apr 1998 18:32:45 -0000 Received: from sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu (sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu [130.86.182.240]) by csus.edu with ESMTP id LAA06426; Mon, 20 Apr 1998 11:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from DSS_486/MAILQUEUE by sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu (Mercury 1.21); 20 Apr 98 10:32:45 -800 Received: from MAILQUEUE by DSS_486 (Mercury 1.21); 20 Apr 98 10:32:41 -800 From: "Eric D. Pierce" To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 10:32:41 PST8PDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: test/ Re: Fw: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com Reply-to: pierceed@csus.edu CC: bahai-faith@makelist.com Priority: normal X-mailer: Pegasus Mail v3.40 Message-ID: <1544285F6E@sswdserver.sswd.csus.edu> This is a test to see if a "cc"'d message from a non-subscriber will get through to Fred's new list. > -----Original Message----- > From: FG > To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com > Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:13 AM > Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com > > > >Please consider sending a courtesy copy "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com > >when posting to alt.religion.bahai or to Bahai topics on > >talk.religion.bahai. > >That would ensure people who have only email capabilities would still be > >able to follow along with the discussion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Eric D. Pierce Information Technology Consultant Client-Server Database/PC Network Server Student Services Lassen Hall 1008 California State University, Sacramento Sacramento, CA 95819 - USA desk phone (916) 278-7586 internet email: PierceED@csus.edu la casa (home): EPierce@ns.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:45 AM To: Harold Shinsato Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com moves to www.makelist.com Sorry you've had trouble. So far 11 of the 19 subscribers have made the switch. I don't know what went wrong for you. Was the server perhaps down or something? It's really a better system than coollist. You might try the email subscription route. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Harold Shinsato To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 3:40 PM Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com moves to www.makelist.com >I liked the coollist format, it was easy to add myself, and easy to get >started, and I could read my mail in my email window. Now I have to log >in, and the www.makelist.com set up won't let me log in even after spending >all the time to get logged in. > >Thanks for setting up the coollist dl, and the makelist set-up, but I'm >going to have to bow out because it's not working for me. > >Good luck to you, > > Harold Shinsato > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> Please confirm your subscription with makelist.com. >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> https://www.makelist.com >> bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting >As of yet, I have not -- until now. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ If you would "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com I'd appreciate it. Someone else has trouble doing it and had his message bounce. I set it up to accept messages from non-subscribers so it should work. Having the problem confirmed by more than one person might help figure it out. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: Re: Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting >As of yet, I have not -- until now. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ If you would "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com I'd appreciate it. Someone else has trouble doing it and had his message bounce. I set it up to accept messages from non-subscribers so it should work. Having the problem confirmed by more than one person might help figure it out. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:54 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.islam Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 1:40 PM Subject: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is >Maleki, >Greeting! This is to respond to some inaccuracies and misimpressions >in your posting of 15 April. Although I have no desire to prolong >this thread, I think it important to clarify several matters for the >benefit of you and other readers who may have similar ideas about >Baha'is and the Baha'i Faith. > >Mehram Maleki wrote (in part): >[snip] >> For Moslems, the only fact that there is to note about Baha'is is >> that Baha'is left Islam . . . > >This is mistaken: most Baha'is worldwide come from backgrounds other >than Islam. Even in Iran, most Baha'is, as I understand it, are >descended from Baha'is, and their forefathers who became Baha'is came >not only from Islam, but also from Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and >Christianity. In fact (as I understand it), only a small percentage of >Baha'is in the world today came from an Islamic background. > >Furthermore, IMHO, it is not accurate (or even respectful, if you think >about it) to say that Baha'is who were raised in another religion >"left" that religion, whether that be Islam or another. They were, >rather, responding to the Call of God in the Words of Baha'u'llah. For >instance, my parents and ancestors were Christian, but my becoming >Baha'i did not mean I left Christianity (in my case it actually gave me >a greater appreciation for that fsith). Baha'is view the Baha'i >revelation as fulfillment of older Dispensations, and that their >acceptance of the Baha'i Revelation does not negate their earlier >beliefs. > >In fact, since Baha'u'llah teaches us to respect all divine religions, >one can IMHO accurately say that the Baha'i Faith has actually *spread* >acceptance of all God's Messengers (including the Prophet Muhammad) to >many people who would otherwise had no reason or opportunity to think >of, let alone consider accepting those Messengers. > >> . . . when Islam needed more understanding and >> work, . . . > >This is an interesting argument, but ultimately without merit. If >ancient pagans had used the same sort of argument effectively might we >all still be worshipping idols? If our ancestors' ancestors had decided >that their old forms of worship "needed understanding and work," would >they then have ignored the call of God in whatever form it came to them? >Please note, I am *not* comparing Islam to pagan beliefs, only pointing >out that if someone says someone else should "stay" in a particular >religion to "work on it" then that same sort of argument could be made >for any belief system, and logically one could go back to the earliest >beliefs humans had. In other words, the argument has no merit in >matters of faith (it may, perhaps, be used more appropriately in team >sports, politics, or business). > >> . . . and from then on, instead of helping us, came back and >> began attacking Islam. > >IMHO, no Baha'i can both follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah and >"attack Islam." So Baha'is are not attacking Islam in any way. In >fact, many people worldwide have come to revere the Prophet Muhammad >and respect & study Islam *because* of the Baha'i teachings. In a >posting several months ago I mentioned meeting an elderly Baha'i woman >from Christian Greek Cypriot background who had been brought up with >negative teachings about Islam and the Prophet. Only because of the >Baha'i teachings that she had accepted could she then overcome this >prejudicial feeling to respect Islam. I am sure this has happened with >many new Baha'is in various parts of the world who have grown up in an >atmosphere of religious hatred and misunderstanding, and come to >appreciate other religions only because of the Baha'i Revelation. Far >from "attacking" Islam or any other faith, the Baha'i teachings require >us to respect divine religions and to interact with their adherents in >a respectful and friendly manner. > >Hope this helps . . . > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 6:54 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.r ights.human Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 3:05 PM Subject: Re: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran >The attached excerpt of an Amnesty International report discusses a >case of ongoing concern that has been mentioned on Usenet last year. > >Rich Winkel wrote: >>/** mideast.gulf: 251.0 **/ >>** Topic: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran... ** >>** Written 4:31 AM Apr 15, 1998 by ihr [at] eng.gla.ac.uk in cdp:mideast.gulf ** >> >>Part of the recent Amnesty Interntational Report 'Unfair Trials in the >>Middle East' Posted on Web Server https://www.amnesty.org >> -------------------------------------------- >>IRAN >>WHERE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS CAN GET YOU A DEATH SENTENCE >> >>Musa Talibi >> >>Musa Talibi was arrested, tried and sentenced to death apparently >>because of his religious beliefs. He is a prisoner of conscience whose >>execution may happen at any time. >> >>Musa Talibi is a Baha'i, a religious minority that is not recognized in >>Iran, and has been a leader of the community there. >> >>He was detained in June 1994 in Esfahan and in October that year he was >>sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment on charges of acting against the >>internal security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and "attracting >>individuals to the misguided sect of Baha'ism, including two [nieces]". >>This sentence was later confirmed. Following an appeal, he was retried >>in February 1995 and his prison sentence was reportedly reduced to 18 >>months from the date of his arrest. In September 1997 he was reported >>to have been moved to Evin Prison. >> >>The prosecution reportedly objected to the lighter sentence, apparently >>on the grounds that Musa Talibi was an apostate and that this had not >>been taken into consideration during the appeal. This apparently >>related to the fact that Musa Talibi had stated during an earlier >>detention in 1981 to 1982 that he had converted to Islam, but since his >>release had continued to practice the Baha'i faith. At a new trial in >>July 1996, Musa Talibi was sentenced to death. His lawyer appealed, but >>was informed verbally that the death sentence had been confirmed. >>Although reports indicated that Musa Talibi had been convicted of >>apostasy, the Iranian news agency IRNA stated in February 1997 that he >>had been convicted of espionage. >> >>However, reports suggest that the sole charge on which the verdict that >>led to his death sentence is based is apostasy. It appears that Musa >>Talibi is being held under the threat of execution solely for his >>religious views. >> >>Apostasy is not a crime under the Iranian Penal Code, although people >>who convert to Islam from other religions and then reconvert can face >>trial and execution under non-codified Islamic law. Men born Muslims >>who convert to another faith may also face execution: women face life >>imprisonment. The Iranian authorities deny that Baha'is follow any >>recognized religion, and treat them with hostility and suspicion, often >>accusing them without foundation of espionage. Many have been executed >>and others have suffered systematic harassment and persecution. >> >>Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights >>(ICCPR), to which Iran is a state party, proclaims the right to hold or >>adopt the religion of one's choice. The Human Rights Committee, which >>interprets and monitors implementation of the ICCPR, has stated that >>this article includes the right to replace one's current religion with >>another, and bars coercion that would impair this right, including the >>threat of physical force or penal sanctions. >> >>The detention of prisoners of conscience is facilitated in Iran by the >>grossly unfair trials faced by those viewed as opponents of the >>government. The trials, usually held before Islamic Revolutionary >>Courts, are often held in secret. Many defendants say they were >>tortured to force them to confess and often say that at no stage in the >>legal proceedings were they allowed contact with lawyers. In many >>cases, defendants are charged with espionage or with vaguely-worded >>charges such as being "at enmity with God" or "corrupt on earth", which >>often appear to be accusations designed solely to silence critics of >>the government. >> >>The death sentence against Musa Talibi should be lifted and he should >>be immediately and unconditionally released. >> >>BACKGROUND Serious human rights violations have continued to take place >>in Iran against many people, including lawyers, writers, journalists, a >>broad range of political opposition from members of left-wing groups to >>monarchists, as well as ethnic and religious minorities. There has also >>been a pattern of human rights violations against Shi'a religious >>leaders and their followers opposed to the government, particularly >>since 1995. In recent years, a number of people, both inside and >>outside the country, have been killed in circumstances suggesting that >>they may have been extrajudicially executed by agents of the Iranian >>Government. Critics of the government face imprisonment after unfair >>trial before special courts, as well as torture and execution. >>Political prisoners may be held without charge or trial in >>circumstances that are shrouded in secrecy. This secrecy is exacerbated >>by the refusal of the Iranian authorities to allow independent human >>rights monitors unhindered access to the country. Amnesty International >>has not been permitted to visit Iran for fact-finding, trial >>observation or government talks since 1979. >> >>More than 200 Baha'is in Iran have been executed, most during the >>1980s, apparently because of their religious beliefs. >> >>Others currently on death row on account of their religious beliefs or >>activities are Dhabihullah Mahrami, Kayvan Khalajabadi and Bihnam >>Mithaqi. >[rest deleted] ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:00 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Not accepting "cc" messages? A non-subscriber has reported that cc messages are bouncing. I'm trying to determine if others are having that problem too. If you've had any difficulties logging in and switching over to makelist.com, let me know so I can attempt to correct them. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting Oops! Lost your other message about this. Anyway, I've emailed makelist.com. Perhaps they can fix it. They don't yet have an interface that allows me to doublecheck how I set it up though as I recall it was for blind posts. They do have a message under Managing Lists for this feature to be coming soon.... It may take a while. In the meantime, it's still a better system than the previous one.... -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Massoud Ajami Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.r ights.human Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:21 PM Subject: Re: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran >X-no-archive: yes >In article <353B9C76.24BC@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu> Donald Zhang Osborn writes: >>From: Donald Zhang Osborn >>Subject: Re: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran >>Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 12:05:26 -0700 > >>>Musa Talibi was arrested, tried and sentenced to death apparently >>>because of his religious beliefs. He is a prisoner of conscience whose >>>execution may happen at any time. >>> >>>Musa Talibi is a Baha'i, a religious minority that is not recognized in >>>Iran, and has been a leader of the community there. >>> > >Wouldn't we say that it is a nice laughter of saying: Musa Talibi was >arrested and sentenced to death because he is a bahai, the religious >minority that is not recognized in Iran, and yet, he is a leader of >the community there?!! > >A leader of Shia community (majority) or minorities like Sunnis, >Zoroastarians, Jews, Christians, or Bahais? The hard push, is Bahai >community, then why not all of them (Bahais) there, get death sentence? > >Amnesty International need to solve the peoblem of sweat shops in USA, too! > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Altaf Bhimji Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion,alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.r ights.human Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 3:24 PM Subject: Re: Amnesty Interntational Report on Iran >In soc.culture.iranian Massoud Ajami wrote: > >: A leader of Shia community (majority) or minorities like Sunnis, >: Zoroastarians, Jews, Christians, or Bahais? The hard push, is Bahai >: community, then why not all of them (Bahais) there, get death sentence? > >Just because t Iran does not recognize the Bahais as a community, does not >mean it is not a community. It is a community, and a much persecuted >community in Iran. Many have been killed, and many have reicieved the >death sentence. The reason why the ddeath sentence is not carried out >more often is because of international pressure. The killings is often >based on warped ideas of "punishment" for apostacy. > >: Amnesty International need to solve the peoblem of sweat shops in USA, too! > >Amnesty international does look into these issues, and is highly critical >of the death penalty in the US. > >altaf > >-- > >home page:https://www.wco.com/~altaf/altaf.html >Islamic and social justice articles, poetry, stories, and links >----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:10 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Entry-By-Troops? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 5:42 PM Subject: Entry-By-Troops? >Dear Friends, > Most of you were attracted to the Faith because of it's Standard Message: >"World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform". This is true because the vast great >majority of Baha'is have 'social-activist' personalities. If you weren't >Baha'is, you were be activists in some other 'World Peace', 'Race Unity', >'Social-Reform' organization (i.e. NAACP,N.O.W.,Amnesty International, >Democratic Party, etc.). So, because MOST American Baha'is are >social-activists, these leads most of them to think that the Standard Message >is thE Message of the Faith. Golly, WHY ELSE would God send Prophets to the >earth other than to establish peace and improve the status of women and >minorities? But, Friends, please be aware that the VAST GREAT MAJORITY of >Americans DO NOT have social-activist personalities, and will NOT join a >religion because it offers them the "12 Principles"! Most people are much >more interested in achieving Inner Peace than World Peace. Religions that >offer them Inner Peace are growing by leaps and bounds. The Baha'i Faith in >this country care 'barely' replace those that it looses every year! > I told this to the Friends way back when; before the "3 Year Plan". They >scoffed, and told me that 'entry-by-troops' was going to be a reality by the >end of the "3 Year Plan". Well, the 3-Year Plan ended in ABSOLUTE FAILURE! As >will the 4-Year Plan (i.e. Ridvan 2000). I don't tell you this to try to put >your down. I want the Faith to grow just as much as any of you. But you don't >realize what I do: that the 'Standard Message' WON'T WORK! Not now, not in the >future. > Now, when the Faith was extremely small, the Standard Message had >advantages. It allowed Baha'i Teacher to present the Faith (for free) to >crowds of people in one or more of the World Peace/Social-Reform/Race Unity >organizations. With every 100 people spoken to, 7 or 8 would then attend a >Baha'i Fireside, and 2 or 3 would join the Faith. Now, while this only brought >in a trickle, it was still SOMETHING. The Faith had no other way to attract >seekers; because it had no money to spend, and no personnel to propagate. So, >even though it only brought in a few, it was workable. > Today, the World Peace Movement is VERY small. The Social-Reform and Race >Unity movements are still there--to a degree-- but many of their members >are not moderate Liberals but Radicals; who would--even if they became >Baha'is-- try to change the Faith to include practicies "homosexuals" and >they will disregard and try to change the laws governing pre-marital and >extra-marital sex. They won't be satisfied until women are allowed on the >Universal House of Justice, and until female Prophets are 'added' to the list >of Manifestations of God. They would work and plan to 'change' the Faith >according to their ideas of what it should be. They will hold up the Law of >Baha'u'llah to the scrutiny of their Humanist/Radical teachers and >philosophers, and not vice versa. True, a trickle of true Believers can still >be gleaned from such organizations, but ONLY a trickle. > If you sincerely want Entry-By-Troops, then you must give-up the 'Standard >Message'; the message that attracted YOU to the Faith! Why? Because it will >only attract VERY FEW. Ye shall know teaching methods 'by their fruits'. What >has been the fruits of this message? The Faith is growing at 2% to 3% per year >in the U.S.; about the same rate as religions that DON'T SEEK CONVERTS! >Please, WAKE UP! > Entry-by-Troops in India was achieved not with the 'World Peace/Race >Unity/Social-Reform Message', but with the 'Prophecy-Fulfillment Message'. By >using the first method, India had only 800 Baha'is in 60 years of trying. Byt >using the second method, India now has over 1 million Baha'is. Can you begin >to see the writing on the wall? > The Standard Message-- used exclusively in the U.S.--based upon the "12 >Principles" will NOT WORK in bringing Entry-By-Troops! If you don't realize >this now, then you will on Ridvan 2000; when the 4-year Plan will end without >bringing ANY significant growth to the Faith in the U.S. The 4-Year Plan, like >the 3-Year Plan, will END IN FAILURE! > If you want to bring Entry-by-Troops to this country, you must begin to >present Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ: in BIG BOLD full-page >advertisements in major newspapers! True, you can keep the standard message as >part of it; but in the footnotes and not in the headlines! > If you want to bring Entry-by-Troops to this country, you must begin to >train young Baha'i men and women on their 'Year-of-Service' on teaching >methods, and send them to Universities; NOT as students, but as missionaries. > Create Baha'i Missions emulating the EXTREMELY successful Mormon missionary >program (each Mormon missionary in the U.S. converts an average of 10 people >per years, and in Latin America about 30 people per year). The Mormon Church >now has 55,000 missionaries throughout the world on 2-year missions, and about >1 million converts each and every year. > Why is all this true? For the simple reason that MOST PEOPLE do not have >'social-activist' personalities! Why do most Baha'is? Because they were >attracted to the Standard Message; the exclusive message used in teaching >campaigns in this country. > I have not written this to condemn the Faith or the Friends, but to get them >to change their methods...if they truly want Entry-By-Troops. >Darrick Evenson >cc. soc.religion.bahai > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:10 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Entry-By-Troops? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 7:38 PM Subject: Re: Entry-By-Troops? >Dear Darrick > >Woul you please substantiate your claim that "the vast majority of Baha'is >have social-activist personalities"? What studies do you cite to confirm >your claim? What statistics have you accessed, and from where? > >Would you please define social-activist personalities, as well. It is not a >concept I am familiar with. > >If this is an opinion, and not based on any scientific evidence, you are >obliged to say so, if only to avoid being embarassed. The path from opinion >to hypothesis to thesis to law is arduous, and one needs to know precisely >where on that path he is. > >With anticipation, > >Robert A. Little > >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6hgc0c$4fd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Dear Friends, >> Most of you were attracted to the Faith because of it's Standard Message: >>"World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform". This is true because the vast >great >>majority of Baha'is have 'social-activist' personalities. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:11 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Key to Unlocking the Mysteries of the Faith Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Monday, April 20, 1998 5:59 PM Subject: Key to Unlocking the Mysteries of the Faith >Dear Friends, > If you would like to understand the Baha'i concepts of Heaven, Hell, >Afterlife, etc., then you need to study the origins of such concepts, and not >rely of what American Baha'i traditions have taught you. This traditions are >based upon interpretations by early American Baha'is who were involved in the >New Thought and Christian Metaphysical movements. They put their own 'spins' >upon the Words of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha. Some of these understandings >were accurate, some a little distorted, and still others WIDE of the truth. If >you want to understand the words of the Central Figures *in the context* for >which they were given, then you must study Islamic Theosophy; especially the >writings of Qadi Sa'id Qummi (d. 1691A.D.). Otherwise, you will not >comprehend the full meanings of their Words. >Darrick Evenson >cc. soc.religion.bahai > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:11 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: AltWay Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.islam Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Re: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is >In article <353B8877.10A8@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, Donald Zhang Osborn > wrote: > " IMHO, no Baha'i can both follow the teachings of Baha'u'llah and > "attack Islam." So Baha'is are not attacking Islam in any way. In > fact, many people worldwide have come to revere the Prophet Muhammad > and respect & study Islam *because* of the Baha'i teachings. > >Comment :- > >Yes, it is true that the spread of Bahai has also brought better >understanding of Islam among non-muslims. > >But I am also going to assert something controversial which may offend many >muslims - the spread of Bahai has also stimulated a better understanding of >Islam among muslims. This is not only because they were forced to study the >Quran to defend themselves against what they regard as a Bahai attack, but >also because some of the Bahai doctrines are in Islam and were completely >ignored or misinterpreted by muslims. From this point of view Bahai >stimulated the resurection of Islam. > >I think, but I am not sure, that Bahais will eventually return into Islam. > >H.S.Aziz > > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:12 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.bahai,alt.religion.islam Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:56 PM Subject: Re: Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is >Why would Bahais return to Islam? >Do Christians return to Judisum? Does any faith (in general) return to the >faith preseeding it? >I dont follow your logic as to why members of a faith would return to on >before. >george ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: bahai harassment fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.pakist an Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:22 PM Subject: bahai harassment > > >Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, > >I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a group >of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting larger >almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my mail >box. > > >I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives going >back a long time. > >Here is his email: > >------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:47:02 -0400 >From: robert horry >To: afrashteh@geocities.com > >that's right bitch, i'm the one who put you on the list. i hate you damn >muslim fundamentalists. if i see anyone else of your kind, i'll put them >on too. you can worship your religion, but when you start declaring >religious supremacy and bad mouthing other religions, then i gotta >problem. i'm the koskash, you know what that means. edit your website or >i'll pimp you like i did your mom.... > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >I suspect that he is an iranian bahai. Iranian bahais quickly turn very rude >and obnoxious (this "special" treatment they reserve for their fellow >countrymen) in contrast to the admittedly very good manner and behavior of >non-iranian bahais. His email vulgar address of koskash (which means basically >"pimp" in a most derogatory way in Persian) also gives him away. > >I have recently put up a form on the site from which anyone can send me >comments. In contrast to great comments from non-bahais (both muslim and >non-muslim) I have received other vulgar messages from people (who from the >choice of language are undoubetdly iranian) and who gave their religion as >bahai. > > >All I have to say is, keep this up. All it does is add fuel to the fire. > >God is on the side of the believers and with such a mighty force of the >universe blessing you and backing you up, who needs to have any worries. > >As the Qur'an says, those who annoy and harass the believers will have wrath >upon wrath on them. They infact do nothing but harm their own souls and >perceive it not. > >For the truth about the bahai faith: > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/main.htm > >Afshin Afrashteh > >afrashteh@geocities.com > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: bahai harassment fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Robert Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.pakist an Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 12:23 PM Subject: Re: bahai harassment >Sir: > >The actions you describe are extremely ugly, and all people of Faith will, I >am sure, denounce them, as do I. These actions are the methods used by >people with black hearts, who use intimidation and fear to accomplish their >heinous ends. > >Christ taught His followers to turn the other cheek. > >Muhammad instructed His followers to love the people of the Book. > >Baha'u'llah exhorts His followers to consort with the followers of all >Religions with love. > >I have included a passage of Baha'u'llah, that I hope will shed some light. > >"Behold how the sovereignty of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, is today >aparrent and manifest amongst the people. You are well aware of what befell >His Faith in the early days of His Dispensation. What woeful sufferings did >the hand of the infidel and erring, the divines of that age and their >associates, inflict upon that spiritual Essence, that most pure and holy >Being! How abundant the thorns and briars which they have strewn over His >Path! It is evident that that wretched generation, in their wicked and >satanic fancy, regarded every injury to that immortal Being as a means to >the attainment of an abiding felicity; inasmuch as the recognized divines of >tht age, such as 'Abdu'llah-i-Ubayy, Abu Amir, the hermit, >Ka'b-ibn-i-Ashraf, and Nadr-ibn-i-iHarith, all treated Him as an impostor, >and pronounced Him a lunatic and a calumniator. Such sore accusations they >brought against Him that in recounting them God forbiddeth the ink to flow, >Our pen to move, or the page to bear them. These malicious imputations >provoked the people to arise and torment Him. And how fierce that torment, >if the divnes of the age be its chief instigators, if they denounce Him to >their followers, cast Him out from their midst, and declare Him a miscreant! >Hath not the same befallen this Servant, and been witnessed by all? > >For this reason did Muhammad cry out: "No Prophet of God hath suffered such >harm as I have suffered." And in the Qur'an are recorded all the calumnies >and reproaches uttered against Him, as well as all the afflictions which He >suffered. Refer ye thereunto that haply ye may be informed of that which >hath befallen His Revelation. So grievous was His plight, that for a time >all ceased to hold intercourse with Him and His companions. Whoever >associated with Him fell a victim to the relentless cruelty of His enemies. >. . > >Consider, how great is the change today! Behold, how many are the Sovereigns >who bow the knee before His name!" > >This is a small measure of the love and respect that Baha'is hold for >Muhammad, and for His devoted servants. > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message ><6hj66f$ut7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >> >>Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, >> >>I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a >group >>of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting larger >>almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my >mail >>box. >> >> >>I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >>certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >>koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives >going >>back a long time. >> >(snip) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: bahai harassment fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,alt.religion.islam,soc.culture.pakist an Date: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:00 PM Subject: Re: bahai harassment >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >> >> Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, >> >> I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a group >> of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting larger >> almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my mail >> box. >> >> I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >> certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >> koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives going >> back a long time. > >I have no way of knowing what faith Mr. Horry is, since I do not know >him. Ultimately, it is irrelevant. If he has subscribed you to mailing >lists without your consent, you can complain to his ISP. They do take >action against their users who violate their terms of service. > >If he is indeed a Baha'i, then that is most unfortunate. Such actions >do not conform to the spirit of the teachings of Baha'u'llah. IMHO, >they don't correspond to the teachings of any religion. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 7:59 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting Mark Foster: >I doubt that there was a problem in the way you set up the >list. I've emailed support at makelist.com. Perhaps in time they can get it fixed. At least they'll be aware there's a problem. I'm happy with the service already. There's less labor for me and people are free to come and go as they wish given the email subscription feature. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:03 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Baha'i harassment?? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <353E3006.69B8@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >>Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, > >Wa alaykuma salaam. > >>I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a group >>of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting larger >>almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my mail >>box. > >I am sorry to hear of this. If someone put you on a mailing list >without your consent, please contact his ISP as Roger suggested. It is >also possible that a lot of the junk mail you receive comes from >spammers who get your unprotected address off of your Usenet postings >&/or web site (I used to get a lot of junk mail before I began posting >with "NOSPAM" in my return e-address). Either way, such practices are >vulgar and objectionable, and can in no way be reconciled with the >Baha'i Faith or any other divine religion. > >>I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >>certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >>koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives going >>back a long time. > >IMHO it is more likely that people against the Baha'i faith who are less >principled than you might want to stir up trouble by making you think >that Baha'is are behind the harassment they themselves are behind. Of >course, neither of us knows (unfortunately) but I think we can agree >that such behavior is not in keeping with the teachings of the Baha'i >Faith, Islam, or any other divine religion. > >I searched "koskash" but found nothing but the message to which I am >replying. Robert Horry is a basketball player with the L.A. Lakers and >there are a great many hits (755 for the new archives & 7900 in the old >ones) when searching this name (I quickly browsed through some of them >but found nothing dealing with religion). Could he have posted under >another name or address in the past? > >>I suspect that he is an iranian bahai. Iranian bahais quickly turn very rude >>and obnoxious (this "special" treatment they reserve for their fellow >>countrymen) in contrast to the admittedly very good manner and behavior of >>non-iranian bahais. His email vulgar address of koskash (which means basically >>"pimp" in a most derogatory way in Persian) also gives him away. > >I can't imagine any of the Iranian Baha'is I know behaving in such a >way. In any event, it is not in keeping with Baha'i teachings. > >>I have recently put up a form on the site from which anyone can send me >>comments. In contrast to great comments from non-bahais (both muslim and >>non-muslim) I have received other vulgar messages from people (who from the >>choice of language are undoubetdly iranian) and who gave their religion as >>bahai. > >Anyone (esp. those using phoney or anonymous names e-mail addresses) can >say they belong to any religion. If there are any Baha'is doing this, >then I suggest they should stop immediately and deepen in the Writings. >But as I said, I personally doubt that any Baha'i would be 1) so >un-Baha'i-like and 2) so dumb as to do such a thing. It is against >Baha'i principles, and certainly is bound to get publically negative >reactions (understandably) from you. > >On the technical side, the fact that you have recently added a mailing >form to your website may open the door to a lot of spam, as suggested >above. Perhaps someone more competent than I on the use of mailing >forms on websites could confirm this and give some advice as to how to >screen out spams/junk mail. > >>All I have to say is, keep this up. All it does is add fuel to the fire. > >All I have to say is that anyone (whatever their background) who is >sending Afshin any harassing e-mails should cease immediately. It is >immoral and unethical and, of course, does nobody any good. > >Hope this helps... > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:04 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: bahai harassment fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message <6hlcg2$vjd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >Thank you Roger for you help. > >I have contacted the University of Toronto Information Commons staff and they >are going to try and deal with this serious matter. They will attempt to trace >the origin of his emails and where the list is coming from. > >I hope his ISP will do something about this outrageous behavior that infringes >on others freedom of speech. > >Peace to all seekers of truth, > >Afshin Afrashteh > > > >In article <353D16F1.1A66A010@wwnet.net>, > rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >> >> afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >> > >> > Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, >> > >> > I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a >group >> > of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting >larger >> > almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my >mail >> > box. >> > >> > I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >> > certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >> > koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives >going >> > back a long time. >> >> I have no way of knowing what faith Mr. Horry is, since I do not know >> him. Ultimately, it is irrelevant. If he has subscribed you to mailing >> lists without your consent, you can complain to his ISP. They do take >> action against their users who violate their terms of service. >> >> If he is indeed a Baha'i, then that is most unfortunate. Such actions >> do not conform to the spirit of the teachings of Baha'u'llah. IMHO, >> they don't correspond to the teachings of any religion. >> >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: fw Re: bahai harassment fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message <6hlcg2$vjd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > > >Thank you Roger for you help. > >I have contacted the University of Toronto Information Commons staff and they >are going to try and deal with this serious matter. They will attempt to trace >the origin of his emails and where the list is coming from. > >I hope his ISP will do something about this outrageous behavior that infringes >on others freedom of speech. > >Peace to all seekers of truth, > >Afshin Afrashteh > > > >In article <353D16F1.1A66A010@wwnet.net>, > rreini@wwnet.net wrote: >> >> afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >> > >> > Peace be upon those that are seekers of true guidance, >> > >> > I have recently been bombarded by upto 120 email messages a day from a >group >> > of people I don't even know talking about junk. This list is getting >larger >> > almost exponentially day by day. No doubt, their attempt is to flood my >mail >> > box. >> > >> > I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >> > certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >> > koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives >going >> > back a long time. >> >> I have no way of knowing what faith Mr. Horry is, since I do not know >> him. Ultimately, it is irrelevant. If he has subscribed you to mailing >> lists without your consent, you can complain to his ISP. They do take >> action against their users who violate their terms of service. >> >> If he is indeed a Baha'i, then that is most unfortunate. Such actions >> do not conform to the spirit of the teachings of Baha'u'llah. IMHO, >> they don't correspond to the teachings of any religion. >> >> Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:06 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: bahai harassment fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Ed wrote in message <353F614A.D5C5161E@bellsouth.net>... > > >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: > >.......... > >> I suspected that bahais were behind this. Now I received an email from a >> certain "Robert Horry" with a vulgar (in Persian) email address of >> koskash@hotmail.com. He can also be found in the dejanews.com archives going >> back a long time. > >I searched dejanews every which way but could not find the name or address above. > >> >> >> Here is his email: >> >> ------------------------ >> >> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 20:47:02 -0400 >> From: robert horry >> To: afrashteh@geocities.com > >Mails received from hotmail also include the following header: > X-Originating-IP: [###.###.###.###] >This is a most important information which indicates the ISP of >the sender. How is that you did not include this header information? >Even if this vital information is not included for some strange reasons >you could contact hotmail and request the information, this is public >information and does not violate individual's privacy. > >> I suspect that he is an iranian bahai. Iranian bahais quickly turn very rude >> .... > >And I suspect this is an attempt to justify (even to small degree) persecution >of innocent Baha'is in Iran. > >-Ed > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: fw Re: bahai harassment fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Ed wrote in message <353F643D.AC1B86AC@bellsouth.net>... > > > >> Well I suppose this is part of your systematic elimination of Bahai faith. >> Perhaps, in your Jihad you may focus on more advanced tools, like reason. >> Anybody can make up a fake email and post it on sci on your behalf and cry >> out in seek of justice. Of course, I do not claim that all Bahais are >> impeccable and prepare to receive the next manifestation; however, even if >> your claim is true and he is an enlisted Bahai, then this would not be >> considered a noble act on part of a follower of Mohammed to expose one's ugly >> face to another and attempt to manipulate the public viewpoint based on a >> single email. Nonetheless, about the Bahi character, you may just ask your >> neighbor, in general it is being appreciated, in Iran or elsewhere. About the >> bombard of your mail box, I think you left a link in your site and asked >> everybody to make their comment. Since your site needs a lots of revision, >> then you are receiving the suggestions. >> > >Very well said, just one minor point: from what I understand Afshin is not >talking about Revision Emails but that someone put him on a subscription >list of one of these email servers and therefore he is receiving lot of junk >emails. The information regarding who put him there can also be traced. > >-Ed > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Dale Grider wrote in message <353E55CF.2801@bellsouth.net>... >Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 > >Dear John, > With respect to the Answered Question in which Abdul Baha states his >case for a symbolic reinterpretation of the Resurrection of Christ, we >find ourselves in disagreement as to just what he intends to assert. The >passage in question is one in which Abdul Baha definitively tells us >that the "The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the >body", not, as he says, "outward facts". I had carefully analyzed the >context of the passage revealing that the entire (often materialistic) >line of argument belongs to Abdul Baha alone and that in it he attempts >to show the naive impossibility of taking Christ's Ascension or >Resurrection literally. You, still trying to find reason to propose that >this passage somehow does not mean that he intends us to believe that >the Resurrection of Jesus was not, in fact, "literal" say, > >"The context of a particular passage of a discussion (especially an >informal one like this)is not automatically determined by looking at the >immediately previous material. It is determined by the discussion in >it's entirety. This particular discussion, in it's original form is >bound to the discussion of the virgin birth, pg. 87 of Some Answered >Questions, in which Abdul Baha said: >"In regard to this question, theologians and materialists disagree. The >theologians believe that..., but the materialists think this... >...The materialists believe that... In answer, the theologians say... >...The materialists insist upon this belief...The theologians say... > This is the basis for my statements in my previous letters" > >(That is, you argue that Abdul Baha's materialistic argument found in >the answered question on the Resurrection is meant to represent some >materialist's perspective and that it is not meant to represent Abdul >Baha's own viewpoint). > > Having gone back to Some answered Questions to consider your assertion, >several things become apparent. > 1). Both of the subjects you say are "bound" together (Christ's virgin >birth and the Resurrection) and the lines of argument for them are >clearly separated as distinct topic sections and are further separated >by their independently inclusive argumentation, premises and >conclusions. They are likewise separated by 5 other distinct sections >that likewise are logically independent in their reasoning and intention >to make distinct points. The only observable aspect of any of these >sections that would "bind" them together is that they are all concerning >aspects of Baha'i theological doctrines about Jesus. > >2) Your assertion is based upon speculative interpretation not borne out >in the text. The topic of Christ's Resurrection distinctly does NOT >develop a materialist vs theologian model as the Virgin birth section >does. It is Abdul Baha's direct answer to a simple question. The section >on Christ's Resurrection is one in which Abdul Baha proposes a thesis; >"The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body.", >and then asserts premises and draws conclusions based upon that concept. >Much of his argument is blatantly materialistic. There is nothing that >intrudes into the text or is in any way suggestive that any part of his >argument is meant only to be his representation of a "materialist's" >false point of view. The text reveals only his own apologetic argument >against the literal Resurrection of Jesus. The entire section follows >and addresses the simple question, >"What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three days?" >The equally straightforward (and wrong) answer that opens Abdul Baha's >response is; > "Answer.--The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations (Jesus in >our case) are not of the body." > The entire section is observably independent of any ties to previous >sections and does not separate a materialist viewpoint from that of a >theologian. One viewpoint is expressed. That of Abdul Baha. > >3) You claim that, "The context of a particular passage of a discussion >...is not automatically determined by looking at the immediately >previous material...". There are, nevertheless, conclusions that can be >drawn from observing the basic flow of logic in how what immediately >precedes (and what immediately follows) a passage in question determines >much of its inarguable meaning. Assuming a rational use of logic in the >use of language we can observe that what you say is not Abdul's own >perspective in the answered question, actually is, necessarily according >to the immediate logical context of the passage which is all that is >needed in this case. For example, Abdul Baha states; > > "His (Christ's) disappearance under the earth for three days has an >inner signification and <<>>. In the same way, >His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it >is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His >ascension to >heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension." > > Up to this point we have a definitive perspective being asserted BY >ABDUL BAHA. We notice that it is diametrically opposed to Scripture. >Christ's Resurrection is presented very much in Scripture as being an >"outward fact" with a "material" aspect. I have already explained to you >how this material reality is significant in its attachment to a personal >aspect to the Resurrection. (the tangible and absolute reality of it is >not a "trivial" consideration as Baha'ism asserts) At this point Abdul >Baha HIMSELF goes on in an unbroken continuation of his own argument >stating, > "Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by >science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, >where innumerable stars and planets revolve." > Drawing conclusions from his own argument, he himself wraps up saying, > "Therefore, we say..." > In this way we can see that immediate context (what immediately >precedes and follows the materialistic argument) is indeed very >important in determining just who is saying what. Your interpretation >John is absolutely set against the text in which Abdul Baha establishes >a thesis, presents his points and draws his own conclusion. It is >specifically not tied to the earlier section in which he clearly >delineates the "materialist" from the "theologian". > Ironically, he is caught here arguing a point that would have him in >the materialist camp, though attempting to use it to make a theological >point. William Sears and Townshend carry such argumentation to >ridiculous extremes in their works which elaborate this false >materialistic argument against literal acceptance of select miracles >that don't jibe with Baha'i presuppositions. Earlier, Abdul Baha set the >materialist apart from the theologian. Now he uses a materialistic >argument to try to prove a theological point. It fails. > Such internally contradictory outlooks are not uncommon within the >Baha'i paradigm. Baha'i argumentation on a given topic often remains >closed within its own little doctrinal closet oblivious to the fact that >it contradicts some other concept elsewhere in the belief system. This >is a dramatic example because the clash exists in mutually exclusive >perspectives asserted that are not only within the same work, but that >are only a few pages separated. > >You say, > > "I believe that a good deal of our difficulty in discussing this issue >is that we each have different ideas about certain terminology. ...I >also don't believe you and I understand the terms symbolic and literal >in quite the same way. Baha'i sacred texts use symbolic in a somewhat >technical sense consistent with its strict dictionary definition: It >refers to the use of sensory images to represent intangible, non-sensory >realities." > > Indeed John, much of our discussion has centered upon a seeming >inability to get terms defined in common. However, I don't think things >are as cloudy as your argumentation tries to paint them. Symbolic to >common usage would mean not being according to the literal words of the >text but having an underlying meaning that is the reality. Abdul Baha >specifically states that the "Resurrection" is not of the "body", not an >"outward fact". You yourself state that within the context of our >discussion symbolic means, "...the use of sensory images to represent >intangible, non-sensory realities." Thus, both you and Abdul Baha >express a concept that is diametrically opposed to Scripture's >intentions concerning the Resurrection of Christ. Scripture paints a >dramatic picture of the literally raised Jesus being touched (outward >fact, tangible and inclusive of sensory realities), able to eat physical >food (outward fact, tangible and inclusive of sensory realities), who >was seen physically and spoken with physically (outward fact, tangible >and inclusive of sensory realities). The confusion you argue over >terminology like "literal", "physical", and "symbolic" is not at all >foggy in the observance of how Baha'i doctrines are opposed to the >Scriptural intention. Scripture says that Jesus was literally, and >physically raised from the dead, in person. If you can show me a passage >that asserts, as Baha'i doctrine, that Jesus Resurrection was literal, >it will contradict every reference I have found that asserts that it was >not. Baha'i doctrine tells us that the Resurrection was the "waning" >faith of the Apostles for three days, as you well must know. It does not >propose the literal Resurrection of Jesus, on any level. Thus you >yourself would stand against established Baha'i doctrine (Abdul Baha) if >you believe that it was. > In fact, when we consider it, the Baha'i symbolic meaning for the >Resurrection completely disassociates itself with with anything having >to do with Jesus personally at all, and instead tells us that the true >meaning of the Gospel Resurrection has to do with the Apostles reaction >to His death. Again, this is how the aspect of Jesus physically literal >Resurrection reveals false religion. The personal aspect of it with >regards to Jesus Christ of Nazareth is inarguable in the Gospel >intention. To say that the real meaning of the Resurrection is that the >Apostles became "steadfast" after three days, completely perverts the >Gospel's intended Message. Let's look at just how Abdul Baha explains >the "true meaning" for the Resurrection. Some Answered Questions pg 104; > "Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as >follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom >of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His >bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and >concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not >resplendent and manifest. ... The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless >body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and >steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ...the Reality of >Christ became resplendent ...His religion found life... In other words, >the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the >bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it." > Now he does not say John that the Resurrection was "literal" but >only significant in its symbolic meaning. He concludes this entire >argument by HIMSELF immediately thereupon concluding, > "Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true >resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of >the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said >that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition >to religion..." > He tells us here, HIMSELF, and quite definitively John, that the >symbolic redefinition is IN PLACE OF a literal interpretation, not in >addition to one, and specifically reasons that such a literal >interpretation as the "clergy" have held have caused many to say that, >"religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to >religion...". His rectifying such a perceived clash is to rationalize >the very literal intention of the Gospel story into a man made fantasy >which takes a personal and literal portrayal of Jesus rising from the >dead, and relegates it to a symbolic way of saying that the Apostles >faith, not Jesus Christ of Nazareth, was "Resurrected" when they became >steadfast. We notice again that Abdul's reasoning in this present >argument, despite anything he has elsewhere said about >supernatural/spiritual reality, rests upon a materialistic viewpoint. He >concludes that the reason it has been said that science is opposed to >religion is because the miracle of the Resurrection was wrongly taken >literally when it was ONLY meant symbolically. We also notice that such >a symbolic interpretation as he presents has no correlation whatever to >the Resurrection stories in Scripture which focus exclusively on the >person of Christ Jesus, not the Apostles. Thus the symbolic >interpretation is worse than weak, it has no basis in the text. > >Thus you are correct when you say, > "Hence, when you read about the meaning of the Resurrection in SAQ, you >take this to mean that the Resurrection never happened, or that Baha'is >don't believe in the Resurrection, that we regard it as a myth, a >fiction, a mere superstition.This is emphatically NOT the case, as I >attempted to demonstrate with my original letter." > > As I have just demonstrated from careful analysis of SAQ where it >specifically addresses this issue, you John, stand against Abdul Baha's >teachings if you accept the Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth as >being literal ON ANY LEVEL. According to him, it is just such thinking >that confuses people into saying that science is opposed to religion. > >Now in regards to all of this you made a profession of faith quite >amazing to me. Considering the line of argument I have presented I was >surprised to hear you say, > >"We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. >With Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any >dogma or doctrine associated with that religion and search for truth >directly from Scripture." > > That is a good viewpoint IF you actually practice it. Let's do with >respect to the Resurrection of Christ and remember to "ignore" any >"dogma" and only consider the intentions of the original text. Obviously >you mean to ignore what you feel are "Christian" dogmas. But the >principle, if it is valid, would include ANY dogmas not in agreement >with the original text. Thus we must also discern as to whether the >"dogma" of the Baha'i symbolic interpretation matches up with the >"source", as you say, the Bible. With respect to Scriptural intentions >concerning the nature and meaning of Jesus' Resurrection I offer the >following Bible passages (certainly not at all exhaustive); > >Matthew 28:9, >"Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings', He said. They came to Him, >clasped His feet and worshiped Him." > >One cannot clasp the feet of a spirit, much less a symbol. > >Luke 24:36, >"While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among >them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and >frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you >troubled and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and >feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and >bones as you see I have.' >When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they >still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, >'Do you have anything to eat?' They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and >He took it and ate it in their presence." > >Clearly the Gospel and very words of Christ, (spoken after the >crucifixion), intend for us to believe that Christ literally rose from >the dead, in the flesh, (and bones). He was resurrected in the person of >Himself, able to be touched, converse, and eat physical food! There can >be concocted no theory of symbolism that does not pervert the intended >meaning of the Gospel and very words of Jesus. > >At John 20:17 Jesus said to Mary Magdalene, >"Do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the Father." > >This is obviously a physical request He made of her. Though we cannot >fathom the significance of why Jesus did not want her to embrace Him >until He had "returned to the Father", it is clear that He stood before >her, able to be embraced, but with something He had yet to do before it >would be proper to embrace Him. > >John 21:12; >"Jesus said to them, 'Come and have breakfast." > >John 20:27; >"Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here: see my hands. Reach out >your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." > >Again Jesus walks, talks, and eats among the disciples. Again He goes to >great lengths to demonstrate dramatically, this time to "doubting >Thomas", that He is truly resurrected, complete with the wounds in His >hands and side that Thomas must physically touch. > >Acts 1:3; >"After His suffering He showed Himself to these men and gave many >convincing proofs that He was alive. ... On one occasion, while He was >eating with them, He gave them this command, 'Do not leave Jerusalem but >wait for the gift my Father promised which you heard me speak about." > > This can in no way be attributed to some abstract theory that the >Resurrection was symbolic of the doubts of Christ's disciples for three >days. These scriptures go beyond leaving any doubt of their intention. >They do not tell us that Jesus' teachings were raised. They tell us that >His person and His body were. They tell us that He was raised >embraceable and able to eat physical food with the Apostles after the >crucifixion and burial of His dead body. They tell us that He, Jesus, >gave "many convincing proofs" that He was alive. He was raised in a >glorified, physical body by all scriptural accounts. > > So no, the Baha'i interpretation is not consistent with the Bible (the >"source"). You may reject the message as too incredible to believe >(science opposed to religion), but it is there and it is clear. Paul >tells us that it will be "foolishness" to the wisdom of the world and so >it is not surprising that Baha'i religion, that rests so much weight >upon Science and the mind of man, cannot accept the good news as the >Gospel presents it. "Religion and science walk hand in hand" says >Baha'u'llah. But Paul tells us that God has chosen the foolish things to >humble the wise, that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's wisdom and >His "weakness" stronger than man's strength. > >Acts 13:27, >"The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet >in condemning Him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read >every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, >they asked Pilate to have Him executed. When they had carried out all >that was written about Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid >Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead and for many days He was >seen by those who had traveled with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They >are now our witnesses to His people." > >Luke clearly tells us here that Paul believed that after Jesus was >"executed" that He was taken "down from the tree" and that they, "laid >Him in a tomb But God raised Him from the dead". He would have been >horrified at the Baha'i concept of Jesus' Resurrection as some >symbolically temporary waning of the Disciple's faith. He adds that, >"for many days He was seen by those who had traveled with Him from >Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now our witnesses to His people." John, >you say you believe that the Bible is the Word of God and the "source" >beyond which other "dogmas" must be ignored. But in reality, you are not >practicing what you preach. > >At Acts 17:31 Luke tells us that Paul says, "For God has set a day when >He will judge the world with justice by the man (Jesus) He has >appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him (Jesus) >from the dead." When they (those Paul was preaching to) heard about the >resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We >want to hear you again on this subject." > The obvious intention here, understood by all involved, was that Paul >was speaking of Christ's Resurrection as a literal miracle. Like the >Baha'is, Luke observes those who "sneered" because they could not accept >the LITERAL intention of the Gospel Message Paul was relaying with >regard to Christ's Resurrection. Passages like this one definitively >reveal the falsehood of the Baha'i's rationalized symbolic >interpretation of Christ's Resurrection. For this scripture relays the >reactions of those present and to whom the original Message was given, >specifically reflecting the incredible and literal intention assumed by >all present as Paul spoke. > In Acts 25:18 Luke quotes an unbiased third party, the governor of >Caesarea, Festus, who discusses Paul's case to the king saying, " When >his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the >crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him >about their own religion and a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was >alive." > In this we must observe that Scripture includes here the report of an >independent third party (even a man of great authority but not with a >Christian bias) who, in commenting upon the intended Message that Paul >was relaying, reflects how that intended Message concerning Christ's >Resurrection, was, in fact, an absolutely a literal-physical one. >Though he is a central figure in it, Paul did not write Acts. But it is >better that he didn't. For Luke's independent testimony, even including >third party witnesses, builds a stronger case for authenticating the >legitimate Christian perspective concerning Christ's Resurrection. We >see this borne out as we read what Paul himself writes in Romans. > Romans 8:10, "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of >sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the >Spirit of Him who RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD is living in you, HE WHO >RAISED CHRIST FROM THE DEAD will also give life to your MORTAL BODIES >through His Spirit, who lives in you. Therefore, brothers, we have an >obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to >it." > We find Paul warning us not to live by our basically "sinful" natures >(non Baha'i), but to look toward Christ's literal Resurrection as a >model for our own future hope (non Baha'i). Once again, Baha'i religion >must pick and choose what it accepts from the Bible, capriciously >rejecting what doesn't fit its presuppositions. It takes Paul's words >out of context, presuming to have him believe in doctrines he would have >been appalled at when we look at what he taught and believed within a >proper context. Not only does Paul say these things himself, but Luke >independently corroborates Paul's words and intentions, solidifying the >true intention of Scripture's message. > The kinds of verses, especially as relayed in the clearly historical, >narrative style of Acts, have nothing to do with a symbolic "Midrash" >writing style, interwoven as they are within the chronological >description of events as they unfolded in the new Church and whose >literal intention is confirmed by those other passages that reflect back >on the miracles themselves with commentary that assumes literal intent. >(recall the point made earlier concerning Paul's comments in >1Corinthians). > In regards to the literal miracle of Jesus Resurrection Baha'is must >utterly disregard much of the subsequent passages of Scripture that have >the "dead" Jesus walking, talking and eating amongst His disciples >again. > > We find then John, that if you accept the Bible as the "source" against >which other "dogmas" must be tested, the Baha'i symbolic redefining is >revealed as utterly false religion. Later in your letter you commented >that, > > "We (Baha'is) take the Bible literally, as the Word of God, and we have >a deep reverence for the Scripture and bow to it's divine authority. We >don't arbitrarily symbolize certain passages to fit our theology as you >assert. > Obviously, considering my immediately preceding presentation, that is >simply not the case. > > > Moving on in you letter I must take great exception to your comment >that; > > "As a bit of constructive criticism, Dale, The authoritative Writings >of the Baha'i Faith have much more to say on this subject than what you >have alluded to here. You have displayed a tendency (here and in your >Fireside Papers) to isolate a passage from the Writings and then declare >it as the final word on Baha'i beliefs. This tends to make you appear >disingenuous in your "independent investigation of the truth". > > First of all, especially in this case of Resurrection, when the writer >details clearly a definitive outlook, one may well expect him to be >responsible for what he says. I believe that I have shown that the >citations I have presented more than state a definitive position and I >have not lifted them from their context to distort their meaning. SAQ is >a useless teaching tool if it is as convoluted as you describe it in >terms of its intended meaning. You suggest that even the very clear flow >present in the immediate context of Abdul Baha's straightforward answers >to simple questions is insufficient for understanding Baha'i doctrine. > ("The context of a particular passage of a discussion (especially an >informal one like this) is not automatically determined by looking at >the immediately previous material") > This is obviously wrong and would necessarily go against the whole >reason why such a book would be written, PARTICULARLY in the casual, >conversational, popular style it is written in. You just don't want to >be held to the equally definitive implications of what he says when >compared to Scripture. What he says is clear as a bell, and it goes >against the Scriptural intentions you call the "source". Certainly in >the case of the Resurrection I have not "isolated" passages to >misrepresent the Baha'i perspective. What Abdul Baha says in the >citations I have quoted is clear, thorough, and presents an unmistakable >outlook. > With respect to the Fireside letters I must politely submit that your >same accusation reveals you more than a bit "disingenuous" yourself >John. To whit, I must doubt that you have actually read it. For the most >fascinating thing revealed in the Fireside Letters comes from having >done the OPPOSITE of what you accuse! The critical basis underlying the >Fireside Letters' case against Baha'i religion comes from having >discovered many MULTIPLE statements dealing with various doctrines from >different Baha'i writers, which, on any given doctrine, often CONTRADICT >one another. I certainly do not propose that there is "A" single Baha'i >"Last Word" on any doctrine John. Most can be found to have multiple >mutually contradictory versions within the "writings". Nevertheless, >when considering the rock solid and clear intentions of any one of these >perspectives (present case in the Resurrection,for example), one can say >that it has, in fact, been proposed as "truth", despite other >contradictory statements found elsewhere in the belief system. That, >John, is not my dishonesty nor is it my "misrepresenting" Baha'i >doctrine. The issue that began this thread in the news group is only one >of many examples; that of the double standard in Baha'i theology in how >Science is defined and used. When used to refute the absolute reality of >select Christian biblical miracles, materialistic naturalism is invoked. >Elsewhere Baha'i doctrine (as elaborated by Townshend for example) >defines science in a mystical fashion that embraces acceptance of the >literal supernatural, and contradicts the materialistic rationale >through which "inconvenient" Christian miracles were dismissed. The >Fireside Letters, contrary to you accusation John, delves into many such >cases based upon looking at MANY passages on any given topic, not >isolating only one. > > >You say, >" We (Baha'is) affirm both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. To us, >both have spiritual and not material significance. It doesn't matter >whether either of these events occurred literally or not, the spiritual >truths that they demonstrate are what is important. This is what Abdul >Baha was saying in SAQ." > > In terms of Christ's Resurrection obviously it is not at all what >Abdul Baha "affirms" or "is saying" in SAQ and it matters very much to >him that a non literal reality be taken for its meaning so as to rectify >the confusing clash he says a literal view would cause between science >and religion. > Also it matters very much that it was a literal/physical occurrence >because of the PERSONAL aspect that such a reality becomes associated >with in the singular person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Jesus, >eternally risen in person, retains that identity eternally and will >return with it, not another person coming "as" His return (ie >Baha'u'llah's claim). > >You tell me John that I, > >"...contend that accepting the "literal" Resurrection is not possible >for Baha'is because of the implicit implication of Jesus returning >PERSONALLY, which would rule out Baha'u'llah's claims entirely. On the >other hand, the Virgin Birth poses no such theological threat. The >reality of the matter is, we view the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection >in exactly the same ways, so the inconsistency that you keep pointing >towards doesn't exist." > > In terms of authoritative Baha'i doctrine this is a false statement. >Baha'i doctrine does not look at the two events in the same way at all. >And it doesn't take reams of lengthy Baha'i passages to point it out. It >can be seen by comparing what Abdul Baha clearly says about both the >Virgin Birth and the Resurrection from Some Answered Questions. > >pg 87 > Question.--How was Christ born of the Holy Spirit? > >...surely the first man had neither father nor mother, for the existence >of man is phenomenal. Is not the creation of man without father and >mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he had simply come >into existence without a father? As you (the "materialist") admit that >the first man came into existence without father or mother--whether it >be gradually or at once--there can remain no doubt that a man without a >human father is also possible and admissible; you cannot consider this >impossible; otherwise, you are illogical." > > We find that Abdul Baha simply accepts the physical/literal nature of >the virgin birth. He bases this on the logical argument that the first >man could, by definition, not have had a father either. (Interestingly, >his argument would, by the same reasoning, preclude the first man from >having had a natural mother either. A sticky point that he conveniently >fails to mention.) Nevertheless, given the mathematics of probability, >it is, in fact, more "probable" statistically that the first man was >instantaneously created whole than that the complexity inherent in him >could have been produced by gradual random mutations and natural >selection. But in both cases, first cause and virgin birth, we are left >with no alternative than a literal, supernatural act of God which >transcends (goes against) the normal laws of Science. Abdul Baha >"affirms" these literal miracles despite this. > >pg 103 >Question.--What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three >days? > > Answer.--The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of >the body. All Their states...have no connection with material things. >... His (Jesus') resurrection from the interior of the earth is also >symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and >likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material >ascension. > Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by >science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, >where innumerable stars and planets revolve. > Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection >is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the >martyrdom of Christ. ... The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; >and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, >and began to serve the Cause of Christ... His religion found life... In >other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life >and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. > Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a >true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the >meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has >been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in >opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension >of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to >the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes >clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; >but, on the contrary, >science and the intelligence affirm it." > > It bears mentioning again at this point (as previously shown in this >letter) that according to any legitimate exegesis of the text, this is >ENTIRELY Abdul Baha's own apologetic argumentation. We find that whereas >he accepted the supernaturally miraculous first cause of life and Virgin >Birth of Jesus as LITERAL/Physical realities, he distinctly does not >accept the Resurrection (or Ascension) of Jesus in the same way. Not >only that, but he SPECIFICALLY cites an utterly materialistic rationale >for dismissing the POSSIBILITY of taking it literally; >"Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by >science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, >where innumerable stars and planets revolve" > >"...this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to >the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when >the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained...) > > In contradiction to his acceptance of the absolute literal miracles of >Creation and Jesus' Virgin birth, Abdul Baha now presents materialistic >reasons for why the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ could NOT be >accepted "in the same way". As stated before John, the double standard >exists because while the virgin birth does not interfere with Baha'i >presuppositions, the PERSONAL Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus Christ >of Nazareth does and must be hypocritically explained away. > So no. Obviously Baha'i doctrine (Abdul Baha) does not view both the >Virgin Birth and the Resurrection the same way John. He accepts the >Virgin birth despite its being against materialistic naturalism, while >he dismisses the Resurrection as needing to be symbolic, based UPON an >argument from materialistic naturalism. But Scripture does "affirm" both >in the exact same way. BOTH are portrayed as absolutely literal PHYSICAL >realities of God's omnipotent power in the Bible. You can't accept the >literal/physical reality of the one and reject it in the other as Abdul >Baha does without the observed hypocritical double standard. > >You say of me, > >"You state "By your same argument 'all the fullness of God' could never >be held within one human person." This is exactly what I intended, and >is exactly what Baha'is believe. Believing that God was fully contained >in the physical body of a human being is to deny His omniscience, His >omnipotence and His infiniteness. I guess I shouldn't have assumed you >as knowledgeable about the Baha'i Faith as I did." > > But I was indeed very "knowledgeable" concerning the Baha'i belief that >Jesus was not God Incarnate. One need not be very knowledgeable to >realize this fundamental Baha'i doctrine. If you reread what I wrote you >will find that my point was to say that, believing so, you disagree with >Scripture. This Baha'i belief is a definitive carry over from the >Islamic roots of Baha'i religion and is wrong for the reason you >yourself earlier proposed; "We (Baha'is) take the Bible literally, as >the Word of God, and we have a deep reverence for the Scripture and bow >to it's divine authority." and recall how you also said; "We, as Baha'is >are instructed to study other religions at their source. With >Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any dogma or >doctrine associated with that religion and search for truth directly >from Scripture." > >Thus, as only one example, Colossians 1:15 tells us about Jesus; > > “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. >For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, >visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or >authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before >all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased >to have all His fullness dwell in Him.” > > Now Baha'i doctrine would interpret that as "the image" of God Jesus >was but a reflection of Him. But the passage taken in context allows for >no such corruption of its intent. For we see that this Jesus, who from >our perspective is the visible image of the invisible God, is the >PERSONAL agent of ALL of Creation, that the PERSON of this Jesus is >uncreated, being said to be "before all things", and that, despite your >Islamically rooted Baha'i objections concerning Jesus' station as God >incarnate ("Believing that God was fully contained in the physical body >of a human being is to deny His omniscience"), Scripture says that >absolutely ALL of the fullness of God was in the PERSON of Jesus Christ >of Nazareth. This, coupled with my former letter discussing how and why >Jesus, as Messiah, HAD to be God incarnate, more than shows that you do >not accept the literal intentions of the Bible as the "source" beyond >which other "dogmas" that don't jibe must be rejected. Baha'ism is >filled with such dogmas that cut against the intended Message of >Scripture in ANY honest interpretation. Several have been elaborated >upon in this very letter. > > > >In similar regard you say, > > "You say "you read meaning into the text that specifically does not >pertain to the nature of Jesus Christ (You exercise isogesis here)", yet >I wasn't talking about the nature of Jesus Christ. I was talking about >the nature of God." > > But, as just demonstrated from Colossians 1:15 you are wrong. When you >are speaking of the nature of God, you ARE necessarily speaking of the >Nature of Jesus. > >You criticize me saying, > >"You also say, "Christ Jesus, who Scripture repeatedly tells us >voluntarily set aside the full measure of His glory during His incarnate >life." >I've read Scripture many times and I've never seen a single verse that >says anything remotely like this. You may be able to show that this >belief is inferred in Scripture, but it is not stated directly anywhere. >There's a BIG difference! (ad hominum that followed snipped)" > > I will briefly cite just the two instances that come to me immediately. >There are many others. The point is that for one who claims to have >"read Scripture many times" it is hard to imagine how you could have >missed such a consistent theme in the Gospel? We can see, for example, >from Jesus’ own words that he Voluntarily set aside the full measure of >His glory in his first coming role as the Suffering Servant from what He >said to Pilot who tried to frighten Him by telling Him that he had His >life in his hands. Christ flatly told him that if He so desired he could >have had legions of angels at His disposal. He innately held levels of >power and glory that He never revealed or utilized in His dispensation >as Suffering Servant. This was His choice, not a limitation against His >station. Phillipians 2:5 tells us of Jesus that He, "...made Himself >nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human >likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself." >How much more specific could Scripture be on this concept John? How >could you be so well read of Scripture and miss it??? > > > I had observed that you reject a physical literalness to resurrection >because you do not distinguish the "carnal" "body" from the "glorified" >"BODY". You respond; > > "Of course I don't distinguish between between the "carnal" body and >the "glorified" body. Why would I? The so-called "glorified" body is not >mentioned directly in Scripture. It may be inferred by "many convincing >proofs" (none of which you've provided) as you say, but it is not >explicitly biblical or scriptural. It's a man-made creation that's only >usefulness >is in supporting prior man-made doctrines." > >Well, let's see if the concept of a distinction between the carnal and >glorified body is "mentioned directly in Scripture", or, as you say, "a >man-made creation". I must say, in advance of citing examples, that I >have certainly "provided" some of these examples before to you in >discussing Christ's literal / physical Resurrection as portrayed in >Scripture and the associated personal distinction it gives Him. >Nevertheless the following scriptures are most definitely "direct" in >distinguishing Christ's post Resurrection glorified body from the normal >carnal body. But then... you have to accept Scripture's portrayal of >Christ's literal and physical Resurrection and stop saying that the >Resurrection was just the Apostles renewed faith. You have seemed to >reject this despite the following examples. Being, as you say, one who >has "read Scripture many times" I won't bother to cite chapter and >verse. You should recall all these well known instances of Jesus being >found to be alive, physically, after His death on the cross. On the >supernatural side we recall how He was able to appear, despite locked >doors, before the Apostles, how he was able to be recognizable or not at >will on the Road to Emmaus and how he had wounds that were no longer to >be associated with pain (come, touch the nail marks...). We see that in >the Ascension (a literal event having to do with a literally risen >person, Jesus Christ of Nazareth) that He was unfettered by normal >physical / material restraints (despite any lack of human understanding >in terms of the dynamics of "how" the Ascension happened). We recall on >a level more recognizable to human understanding how he was nevertheless >able to be seen, touched, spoken with, and eat physical food. Contrary >to your assertion that, "...it is not explicitly biblical or scriptural. >It's a man-made creation that's only usefulness >is in supporting prior man-made doctrines.", we find that literally >EVERY instance (and as you know there are many) of post Resurrection >appearances by Jesus is rich in details that distinguish His post >Resurrection body, 1) as a BODY with innate physical characteristics, >and 2) as being infinitely above the level of the normal carnal body >with supernatural aspects beyond human comprehension. I don't see how >you missed all of the many post Resurrection passages that "directly" >detail aspects of Jesus' glorified body in your many readings of >Scripture? > Hopefully we don't bore anyone with our long posts John! I, for one, >enjoy the stimulating exchange and feel that the point/ counterpoint can >only help illumine truth for those on the quest! Enough for now. I must >investigate your other (29 page!) letter! > >God bless, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:11 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6hmcr2$kob$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Robert, > With mentalities such as yours among the Friends, the Faith in this country >is "guaranteed" failure in any attempt for Entry-by-Troops! >Darrick Evenson > >In article <6hhevi$ho8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>, > "Robert Little" wrote: >> >> Dear Darrick >> >> Woul you please substantiate your claim that "the vast majority of Baha'is >> have social-activist personalities"? What studies do you cite to confirm >> your claim? What statistics have you accessed, and from where? >> >> Would you please define social-activist personalities, as well. It is not a >> concept I am familiar with. >> >> If this is an opinion, and not based on any scientific evidence, you are >> obliged to say so, if only to avoid being embarassed. The path from opinion >> to hypothesis to thesis to law is arduous, and one needs to know precisely >> where on that path he is. >> >> With anticipation, >> >> Robert A. Little >> >> darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6hgc0c$4fd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >Dear Friends, >> > Most of you were attracted to the Faith because of it's Standard Message: >> >"World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform". This is true because the vast >> great >> >majority of Baha'is have 'social-activist' personalities. >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Baha'i impact on "other" religions (was Re(3): Da'wa to Baha'is) fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com AltWay wrote in message ... >In article <353CEEF6.148B@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>, Donald Zhang Osborn > wrote: > Re : I think, but I am not sure, that Bahais will eventually return into > Islam. > > "I'm not sure how one can draw this conclusion from anything going on in > the world of religion (esp. in this case, the Baha'i Faith and Islam) or > the world in general. First of all, for most Baha'is, conversion to > Islam would not be a "return" in that they never were Muslim. Secondly, > and more to the point, however much Baha'is respect Islam (as we are > taught to respect all faiths), the Baha'i religion is evolving in a way > that makes it ever more unique, as we Baha'is study and put into > practice the considerable body of Baha'i sacred writings. How could we > abandon all of that, put it out of our minds & hearts, and "go back" to > one of the older divine religions (however good they also are)? Third > and most important is God's warning as revealed by Baha'u'llah in the > "Tablet of Ahmad": "Be thou assured in thyself that verily, he who > turns away from this Beauty hath also turned away from the Messengers of > the past and showeth pride towards God from all eternity to all > eternity." Acceptance of the Baha'i faith is not a light matter -- > it is demanding (in the sense of responsibility) as it is spiritually > rewarding -- that is why many people have died rather than renounce it > >Reply :- >I did not make my statement lightly. > >A study of the Quran shows that the word "Islam" is used not as a label for >a religion or sect, but in its true meaning "Surrender to Allah". Since >Allah refers fundamentally to Reality itself (31:30, 38:36) then there >cannot be any religion greater than surrender to Allah (4:125). > >Indeed, the Quran tells us that :- >it is a synonym for religion itself (3:19-20), >that none other is acceptable (3:85) >and that there is only one true religion though it was taught by many >prophets all over the world (16:36) >and that this religion will conquer all others (61:9) , >and we ought not to split religion into sects (23:52-54, 30:31-32). >Allah will bring us all together.5:48) > >I realise, of course, that these definitions also imply that the religion >which muslims are required to follow cannot be Muhammadanism, and that it >refers to Islam as defined and not to the misinterpretations and >malpractices and other extraneous materials which have entered into it. >But they also exclude the worship of any prophet or any kind of sectarianism >or any ideas and practices which go counter to the ultimate aim of unity. I >am not certain that Bahai is free of all this. > >Bahais may wish to go forward, but this is also true of muslims. The >question is :- Is it the same destination they are aiming for? I am not >convinced that it is. Nor that the methods used will lead to it. > >H.S.Aziz > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 23, 1998 8:19 AM Subject: Re: Bahai-faith@makelist.com posting Roger Reini wrote in message <353fd761.602726237@news.newsguy.com>... >On Tue, 21 Apr 1998 11:35:29 -0400, Roger Reini >wrote: > >>My original note was cc'd -- but I did receive an error message saying >>my mail had not yet been delivered. > >Which was then followed by a note saying my posting was rejected. It >seems that only subscribers can post to the list. There's an unexpected technical problem.... Perhaps in time it can be corrected. For some reason, the feature of allowing non-subscribers to post to the list is not working. I've alerted the support people at makelist.com. Thanks for trying to post to it. I'll let you know when and if they get it fixed. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:03 AM To: Harold Shinsato Subject: Re: bahai-faith@coollist.com moves to www.makelist.com >I wasn't aware there was an email subscription route, it seemed like I'd >have to log into to the bloody webserver every time, and type in a bloody >password, and hope that it would accept my registration. I saw no >description on the website or in you email about how to register by email, >which would have been my preferred route. > > Harold Sorry again. Just set it up and getting the bugs. Give it another try.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:12 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Roger Reini wrote in message <353f22a2.654593473@news.newsguy.com>... >I have a hypothetical question to ask Dale. > >Suppose you were to hear a news report that the body of Jesus had been >found. Let's assume there was a way to authenticate this (in real >life, this would probably not be possible), and that the body was >conclusively proven to be that of Jesus of Nazareth. > >What would be your reaction? You have been making the case that Jesus >is the only man through Whom God manifested Himself, that He was >physically resurrected and ascended physically to Heaven, where He >awaits the day of His return, when He will bodily descend back to >earth. And now you hear that His body has been found. > >How would you respond? Would you suffer a crisis of faith? > >If I were to hear such a report, it would not change my love for Him >one bit. For His greatness does not depend on His being physically >resurrected, IMHO. It comes from the teachings He brought, the words >He spoke, the guidance He gave. How many speeches from 2000 years ago >are as remembered as the Sermon on the Mount? > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:12 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Dale Grider wrote in message <353FBEB5.49DC@bellsouth.net>... >Roger asks me, >"Suppose you were to hear a news report that the body of Jesus had been >found. Let's assume there was a way to authenticate this (in real life, >this would probably not be possible), and that the body was >conclusively proven to be that of Jesus of Nazareth. What would be your >reaction? You have been making the case that Jesus is the only man >through Whom God manifested Himself, that He was physically resurrected >and ascended physically to Heaven, where He awaits the day of His >return, when He will bodily descend back to earth. And now you hear that >His body has been found. >How would you respond? Would you suffer a crisis of faith? > > >My answer to you should be framed within the context that Baha'is keep >telling me that the Bible is indeed the "Word of God". Thus, my answer >to you, and according to the Word of God, is yes, it would cause for me >a great crisis in Faith, even as it would have caused the Apostle Paul >who wrote; > >1Corinthians 15:12 > "But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how >can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there >is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. >And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is >your faith.More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about >God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the >dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised.For if >the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if >Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your >sins.Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.If only >for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all >men.But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of >those who have fallen asleep." > >You, contrary to my reaction (and Paul's...and Scripture's) say, >"If I were to hear such a report, it would not change my love for Him >one bit. For His greatness does not depend on His being physically >resurrected..." > >Thus Roger, unlike Paul, you do not know Him, nor do you understand the >spiritual desperateness with which your future depends upon the grace >provided by it. Paul does, as can be easily recognized by the dramatic >passage just cited. But He concludes Roger that such depressing >speculation is wrong; "But Christ has indeed been raised from the >dead..." There is no body to be found. > >This leads me to one final consideration in answering your cynical >question. Consider Roger that the death and alleged Resurrection of >Jesus happened in a VERY small and well defined locale. Consider that >even at the outset of this story the JEws would have DESPERATELY loved >to find that body to dispell the Christian Messgae from getting off the >ground. Consider that the Romans would have loved to recovered it to >keep the peace with the Jewish authorities (recall that they grudgingly >relented to allow them to kill Him in the first place for just the same >reason).Recall that the Apostles and followers of Christ had scattered >in fear of the same fate as Jesus, even Peter who denied him in terror. >Consider that they were few in number anyway and not in authority as the >Jews who had Jesus killed were and who utilized the even more >immediately powerful Roman authority to guard the tomb.(They were not in >a position to steal the body and no one else had any motive to do so, >but had every motive NOT to) Consider that for 2,000 years every cynic >like yourself who would love to disprove the incredible claims of >Christian Faith have had this small area to scour to find Him. They >haven't. They won't. They'll have to look UP to see Him next, not down >in a grave Rog. > >So yes <<>> Christ is not raised you may consider me (and Paul) > > "found to be false witnesses about God" >and our > "preaching is useless" >as is our > "faith" >And of Paul and I, > "we are to be pitied more than all men" > >This is Scripture Roger.According to it such a condition would be >horrific because of what that Resurrection means to Humanity. You do not >hold to the same outlook. > >BUT this too is Scripture; > > "But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of >those who have fallen asleep." > >This too you do not believe as you cynically ask me a question that Paul >himself considered and answered in the Scripture you call the "Word of >God" long ago. > >In Christ, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Roger Reini wrote in message <354068a0.657818559@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 23 Apr 1998 01:39:27 GMT, Dale Grider >wrote: > >[snips] > >>Thus, as only one example, Colossians 1:15 tells us about Jesus; >> >> “He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. >>For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, >>visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or >>authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before >>all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased >>to have all His fullness dwell in Him.” > >Personally, I believe that this verse describes the nature of the >Manifestation of God. I find it to be very compatible with the Baha'i >teachings. > >Notice the first line of the quotation: "He is the image of the >invisible God...." To me, this sounds very much like the Baha'i >teaching of the Manifestation as a perfectly polished mirror which >reflects the bounty of the sun (meaning God). > >"...the firstborn over all creation..." This cannot be referring to >the physical person of Jesus, for He came from His mother's womb. >Again, I see it as referring to the eternal nature of the >Manifestation, which transcends physical limitations. > >I feel the same way about the passage "For God was pleased >to have all His fullness dwell in Him." It refers to the spiritual >nature of the Manifestation, not to any physical form He may have. >How can something that is infinite be fully contained in something >that is finite, be it an atom, an adult male, or the entire universe? > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert Little wrote in message <6hp52o$8au$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Mr. Evenson: > >What have I said that offended you? > >You made a declaration that apparently contradicts statements you yourself >have made in this same forum. You speak of entry-by-troops, and say that >the Faith is retrogressing, rather than growing ( a summation). Now, you say >that Baha'is are activists, and that these are the (only) people who are >attracted to the Faith (another summation). > >Frankly, the Faith of Baha'u'llah could use a lot more activism. Baha'is >need to arise to proclaim in greater numbers, and with greater passion. >However, that begs the question: you made a very strong statement, and when >you were asked to substantiate that statement, you reacted rather than >responded. > >If you have statistics or data to back up your claim, produce them, or tell >us it is your opinon. I have no problem with negative opinions of Baha'is or >the Baha'i Faith. I used to have some myself. If, however, someone makes a >declarative statement such as "the vast majority of Baha'is have >social-activist personalities", they should expect that statement to be >questioned by Baha'is. Those present who are not Baha'is will not >necessarily know whether it is in fact true or not, but will quite possibly >assume it to be true, and may therefore draw a conclusion about Baha'is that >is neither representative nor positive. > >I am saddened that you have chosen to respond thusly, as I was interested in >hearing of any statistics you may have had. I know that at least two studies >of the Baha'is in the United States have been made, and thought that you >were drawing on these for your remarks. Your statement was quite strong, and >merited the question. > >The advancement in the process of entry by troops is underway in Los >Angeles, and I have already heard of recent successes in other parts of the >US. The next two years will be years of growth and of pain. I hope to be >part of the process, rather than, as you declare, part of the problem. > >re "entry-by-troops" > >The Los Angeles Baha'i community has been growing, not so much in numbers, >although it is of course increasing in size, but in the maturity of the >institutions which is absolutely vital to this stage in the growth of the >Faith of Baha'u'llah. Los Angeles now has a very large center, with a huge >auditorium and numerous smaller rooms, offices and public areas. Its' >bookstore is the largest in the world. Its has a well established Baha'i >School. It is the originator of the Baha'i Youth Workshop, which has spread >worldwide. It has attached to it the Unity Center, a large two-story >nonprofit institution devoted to the spiritual, educational and physical >welfare of the youth of Los Angeles. This center houses the Crossroads >School, a prestigious private school which has modeled its curriculum on the >Baha'i Principles. It has a theatre, where artistic programs are presented. >As a nonprofit institution, it can accept monies from the community and from >the government. Hint. > >Los Angeles plans to have a second Center in the San Fernando Valley within >two years. Over 700 Baha'is live in that part of the city. > >The community is divided into four subunits, each of which has an Area >Council, appointed by the Spiritual Assembly, and which have been given many >of the responsibilities of the Spiritual Assembly. The Administrative Order >is being strengthened so that the anticipated increases in enrollment will >not overwhelm the community. > >These Area Councils are the way of the future, for no Spiritual Assembly can >possibly directly administer the large communities that are just around the >corner. In the future, it can be assumed that there will be far more of >these subunits. > >As to communication, the Faith here in the United States is also making >dramatic strides to build a communications system that will knit every >Spiritual Assembly in the country together instantaneously, fulfilling >statements made by the Guardian 60 years ago. Los Angeles is one of the five >communities building the prototype. > >Indeed, there are so many signs of the health and vigor of the Baha'i Faith >that it is not practical to even list them. > >re "majority of Baha'is have social-activist personalities": > >My personal observation is that most Baha'is are followers of Baha'u'llah. > >We come from all walks of life, high and low, and some of us are activists, >and some of us are extremely , er, passivistic. Baha'is of Iranian descent, >who have come from Iran, tend to be very quiet - a decidedly intelligent >response to fanaticism - as well as devoted and sacrificial. Our response to >the exhortations of Baha'u'llah have nothing whatsoever to do with our >personalities. It has to do with our Faith. > >Faith, Mr. Evenson is what causes the Baha'is to arise. Faith in God, in His >chosen Manifestation, in His divinely ordained Institutions. As you are >apparently somewhat conversant with Baha'i history, look to Lua Getsinger. >She is an excellant example of how faith can transform an individual. Study >her life. > >There are two forms of communication observed here: debate and dialogue > >In debate, one has a position and defends it "against" opponents. There is >little or no exchange of truth, nor is the discovery of truth even desired. >Winning is the goal. > >In dialogue, all participants put their piece of truth into the "pot", where >it is examined by all, and the best possible truth is extracted. >Participants do not defend their piece of truth, nor attack others'. Nobody >has all the truth, nobody has none of the truth. The goal is to find truth. > >I have been dialogueing with you. I will not debate you. I don't learn >nuttin' that way. > >With respect. Really. > >Robert A. Little > >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6hmcr2$kob$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Dear Robert, >> With mentalities such as yours among the Friends, the Faith in this >country >>is "guaranteed" failure in any attempt for Entry-by-Troops! >>Darrick Evenson >> >>In article <6hhevi$ho8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>, >> "Robert Little" wrote: >>> >>> Dear Darrick >>> >>> Woul you please substantiate your claim that "the vast majority of >Baha'is >>> have social-activist personalities"? What studies do you cite to confirm >>> your claim? What statistics have you accessed, and from where? >>> >>> Would you please define social-activist personalities, as well. It is not >a >>> concept I am familiar with. >>> >>> If this is an opinion, and not based on any scientific evidence, you are >>> obliged to say so, if only to avoid being embarassed. The path from >opinion >>> to hypothesis to thesis to law is arduous, and one needs to know >precisely >>> where on that path he is. >>> >>> With anticipation, >>> >>> Robert A. Little >>> >>> darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message ><6hgc0c$4fd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>> >Dear Friends, >>> > Most of you were attracted to the Faith because of it's Standard >Message: >>> >"World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform". This is true because the vast >>> great >>> >majority of Baha'is have 'social-activist' personalities. >>> >>> >> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 8:15 AM Subject: fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert Little wrote in message <6hp52o$8au$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Mr. Evenson: > >What have I said that offended you? > >You made a declaration that apparently contradicts statements you yourself >have made in this same forum. You speak of entry-by-troops, and say that >the Faith is retrogressing, rather than growing ( a summation). Now, you say >that Baha'is are activists, and that these are the (only) people who are >attracted to the Faith (another summation). > >Frankly, the Faith of Baha'u'llah could use a lot more activism. Baha'is >need to arise to proclaim in greater numbers, and with greater passion. >However, that begs the question: you made a very strong statement, and when >you were asked to substantiate that statement, you reacted rather than >responded. > >If you have statistics or data to back up your claim, produce them, or tell >us it is your opinon. I have no problem with negative opinions of Baha'is or >the Baha'i Faith. I used to have some myself. If, however, someone makes a >declarative statement such as "the vast majority of Baha'is have >social-activist personalities", they should expect that statement to be >questioned by Baha'is. Those present who are not Baha'is will not >necessarily know whether it is in fact true or not, but will quite possibly >assume it to be true, and may therefore draw a conclusion about Baha'is that >is neither representative nor positive. > >I am saddened that you have chosen to respond thusly, as I was interested in >hearing of any statistics you may have had. I know that at least two studies >of the Baha'is in the United States have been made, and thought that you >were drawing on these for your remarks. Your statement was quite strong, and >merited the question. > >The advancement in the process of entry by troops is underway in Los >Angeles, and I have already heard of recent successes in other parts of the >US. The next two years will be years of growth and of pain. I hope to be >part of the process, rather than, as you declare, part of the problem. > >re "entry-by-troops" > >The Los Angeles Baha'i community has been growing, not so much in numbers, >although it is of course increasing in size, but in the maturity of the >institutions which is absolutely vital to this stage in the growth of the >Faith of Baha'u'llah. Los Angeles now has a very large center, with a huge >auditorium and numerous smaller rooms, offices and public areas. Its' >bookstore is the largest in the world. Its has a well established Baha'i >School. It is the originator of the Baha'i Youth Workshop, which has spread >worldwide. It has attached to it the Unity Center, a large two-story >nonprofit institution devoted to the spiritual, educational and physical >welfare of the youth of Los Angeles. This center houses the Crossroads >School, a prestigious private school which has modeled its curriculum on the >Baha'i Principles. It has a theatre, where artistic programs are presented. >As a nonprofit institution, it can accept monies from the community and from >the government. Hint. > >Los Angeles plans to have a second Center in the San Fernando Valley within >two years. Over 700 Baha'is live in that part of the city. > >The community is divided into four subunits, each of which has an Area >Council, appointed by the Spiritual Assembly, and which have been given many >of the responsibilities of the Spiritual Assembly. The Administrative Order >is being strengthened so that the anticipated increases in enrollment will >not overwhelm the community. > >These Area Councils are the way of the future, for no Spiritual Assembly can >possibly directly administer the large communities that are just around the >corner. In the future, it can be assumed that there will be far more of >these subunits. > >As to communication, the Faith here in the United States is also making >dramatic strides to build a communications system that will knit every >Spiritual Assembly in the country together instantaneously, fulfilling >statements made by the Guardian 60 years ago. Los Angeles is one of the five >communities building the prototype. > >Indeed, there are so many signs of the health and vigor of the Baha'i Faith >that it is not practical to even list them. > >re "majority of Baha'is have social-activist personalities": > >My personal observation is that most Baha'is are followers of Baha'u'llah. > >We come from all walks of life, high and low, and some of us are activists, >and some of us are extremely , er, passivistic. Baha'is of Iranian descent, >who have come from Iran, tend to be very quiet - a decidedly intelligent >response to fanaticism - as well as devoted and sacrificial. Our response to >the exhortations of Baha'u'llah have nothing whatsoever to do with our >personalities. It has to do with our Faith. > >Faith, Mr. Evenson is what causes the Baha'is to arise. Faith in God, in His >chosen Manifestation, in His divinely ordained Institutions. As you are >apparently somewhat conversant with Baha'i history, look to Lua Getsinger. >She is an excellant example of how faith can transform an individual. Study >her life. > >There are two forms of communication observed here: debate and dialogue > >In debate, one has a position and defends it "against" opponents. There is >little or no exchange of truth, nor is the discovery of truth even desired. >Winning is the goal. > >In dialogue, all participants put their piece of truth into the "pot", where >it is examined by all, and the best possible truth is extracted. >Participants do not defend their piece of truth, nor attack others'. Nobody >has all the truth, nobody has none of the truth. The goal is to find truth. > >I have been dialogueing with you. I will not debate you. I don't learn >nuttin' that way. > >With respect. Really. > >Robert A. Little > >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6hmcr2$kob$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Dear Robert, >> With mentalities such as yours among the Friends, the Faith in this >country >>is "guaranteed" failure in any attempt for Entry-by-Troops! >>Darrick Evenson >> >>In article <6hhevi$ho8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>, >> "Robert Little" wrote: >>> >>> Dear Darrick >>> >>> Woul you please substantiate your claim that "the vast majority of >Baha'is >>> have social-activist personalities"? What studies do you cite to confirm >>> your claim? What statistics have you accessed, and from where? >>> >>> Would you please define social-activist personalities, as well. It is not >a >>> concept I am familiar with. >>> >>> If this is an opinion, and not based on any scientific evidence, you are >>> obliged to say so, if only to avoid being embarassed. The path from >opinion >>> to hypothesis to thesis to law is arduous, and one needs to know >precisely >>> where on that path he is. >>> >>> With anticipation, >>> >>> Robert A. Little >>> >>> darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message ><6hgc0c$4fd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>> >Dear Friends, >>> > Most of you were attracted to the Faith because of it's Standard >Message: >>> >"World Peace/Race Unity/Social-Reform". This is true because the vast >>> great >>> >majority of Baha'is have 'social-activist' personalities. >>> >>> >> >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 10:17 AM To: LaAeterna Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? I'm not clear whether this was posted to makelist.com. Honestly, I don't have any answers.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, April 24, 1998 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? >Robert Little mentions the growth in the LA area being completed for the >anticipated "entry by troops." I have the UHJ pamphlet on the Four Year Plan >which discusses this hoped-for growth, and have a couple of questions >(inasmuch as I don't belong to any of the organized Baha'i groups, I am >somewhat out of the loop here). >1. What has made the UHJ decide that this is going to happen at all? Here we >are in the middle of 1998--that leaves about 18 months for millions or even >billions of people to suddenly make the change and rush in to become Baha'is. >2. What would be the motivator for people to suddenly do an "about face" and >become spiritually aware, when they have shown no proclivity toward that up to >now? >3. If the Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah's statement that only AFTER a >calamity occurs will the Cause of God be established on earth (see Gleanings >p.118), and Shoghi Effendi's urgent calls for them to leave the cities, why >would they build these huge edifices in precisely those places where they are >most likely to be destroyed?? >4. Abdul'Baha states: "Verily, I say unto you: none shall be saved but the >believers, and from the believers only the sincere, and even those will be in >great danger, especially in such a time..." (Baha'i Scriptures p. 443). This >seems to indicate that as opposed to 'entry by troops," there shall be >"exiting by troops," to the point where very few true Baha'is will be left. >How do the Baha'is account for this apparent contradiction? >Some concise explanations would be most appreciated ;) This has puzzled me >for a long time. >Nancy > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 24, 1998 10:18 AM Subject: fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Scott P. Duncan wrote in message <35409415.FBA39A5F@mindspring.com>... >Robert Little wrote: > >> You speak of entry-by-troops, and say that >> the Faith is retrogressing, rather than growing ( a summation). Now, you say >> that Baha'is are activists, and that these are the (only) people who are >> attracted to the Faith (another summation). >> >> Frankly, the Faith of Baha'u'llah could use a lot more activism. Baha'is >> need to arise to proclaim in greater numbers, and with greater passion. > >I believe the statement made was related to Baha'is being "social >activists,"not activitists for their Faith: > >> "the vast majority of Baha'is have social-activist personalities" > >which is slightly different than suggesting they are "activitsts," in general. > >> Those present who are not Baha'is will not >> necessarily know whether it is in fact true or not, but will quite possibly >> assume it to be true, and may therefore draw a conclusion about Baha'is that >> is neither representative nor positive. > >Well, there was a time some 25-30 years ago that this image would havebeen >absolutely positive and a lot of teaching of the Faith was based on a >approach that emphasized social principles, not spiritual/religious ones. >I think that has changed significantly since lots of groups have comparable >social principles, at least on the surface. > >> I am saddened that you have chosen to respond thusly, as I was interested in >> hearing of any statistics you may have had. I know that at least two studies >> of the Baha'is in the United States have been made, and thought that you >> were drawing on these for your remarks. > >Perhaps you can comment on those studies, since I am not aware of the datawhich >came from them or who conducted them or when or where. I'm not >trying to cast dispersions on your statement, by the way, I'd really love to >know more about the studies. I'm not sure the results were disseminated >widely. Did they say things about the motivations behind declarations, etc.? > >> growing ... in the maturity of the >> institutions which is absolutely vital to this stage in the growth of the >> Faith of Baha'u'llah. >> >> These Area Councils are the way of the future, for no Spiritual Assembly can >> possibly directly administer the large communities that are just around the >> corner. In the future, it can be assumed that there will be far more of >> these subunits. >> >> As to communication, the Faith here in the United States is also making >> dramatic strides to build a communications system that will knit every >> Spiritual Assembly in the country together instantaneously, fulfilling >> statements made by the Guardian 60 years ago. > >I think your overall point, that "growth" is more than numbers, is >important,but I believe there has always been a concern over slow numerical >growth. >This is still a subject of discussion among Baha'is. I think it is a healthy >discussion since I don't think it is an either-or situation. I think each >indivd- >dual has to concern themselves with how well they are both "preparing the >way," so to speak, as well as filling that "way" up with people to make the >Faith's more plain. > >> Indeed, there are so many signs of the health and vigor of the Baha'i Faith >> that it is not practical to even list them. > >But I think it is important to do so, just as the Universal House of >Justiceoften does in listing international accomplishments, since people will >ask, >due to our numericla "invisibility" in many cases, "what are the Baha'is doing" > >or "doing about ." Indeed, social activism seems to >be something many people look at as an example of religious viability since it >is a part of the modern behavior of religions. > >Before the Faith, most religious seemed to have a spiritual emphasis with im- >plications for social activism. The Faith came to the West in a time of great >sicla reform and activism. Indeed, some of the Writings suggest it was the >"animating power" of this Revelation that kicked this off in humanity. So >the Western world, at least, looked to social principles as a way to make an >otherwise "Eastern" religion seem understandable. I think there is little >ques- >tion that the social/administrative aspects of the Faith have had a strong in- >fluence in the USA (and porbably much of he Western world) compared to >its spiritual principles. This has clearly been changing over the past decade >as spiritual reawakening, at one level of another, seems to be taking some >hold in the USA. > >> In dialogue, all participants put their piece of truth into the "pot", where >> it is examined by all, and the best possible truth is extracted. >> Participants do not defend their piece of truth, nor attack others'. Nobody >> has all the truth, nobody has none of the truth. The goal is to find truth. > >I would agree, but one cannot demand statistics and proof, either if one does >not like what the other puts into the pot or how vehemently they drop/throw >it in! :-) From a personal experience perspective, I believe what has been >said about the social principles being emphasized over the years does carry >some truth to it. I believe our Institutions have been trying to encourage us >to deepen ourselves in our knowledge and love for Baha'u'llah and for >His Covenant to emphasize that it is there that we find the strength of our >Faith, the "social principles" being merely an outward expression of how >to direct that strength for improvement of the physical world which will >make spiritual improvement easier since it will eliminate many of the ills >an distractions that occupy us physically (and intellectually). > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 1998 10:15 AM Subject: Please also post a "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com & crosspost to talk.religion.misc Bahai-faith@makelist.com should now be set up to accept courtesy copies, a "cc," from non-subscribers. Anyone may also access the Archives for the list at the address given below. Cc-ing your message to the bahai-faith list will allow people with only email capabilities to follow along and participate in the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. Similarly, simultaneously crossposting to talk.religion.bahai will permit people with Usenet access only to the Big 8 hierarchy to read and post back to alt.religon.bahai. While these are stop-gap measures for compensating for the lack of talk.religion.bahai, they're the best that can be done at the moment. If most people posting to alt.religion.bahai would choose to cc and crosspost in these ways, it would help a lot people who want to discuss the Bahai faith in an unmoderated forum to do so. There are presently 11 people subscribed to bahai-faith@makelist.com. I hope before long it will be back up to the 19 who were subscribed to the coollist version and will grow beyond that number too. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 1998 10:19 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Apology (was Re: Baha'i Harrassment) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Susan Heintz Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, April 26, 1998 3:30 AM Subject: Apology (was Re: Baha'i Harrassment) >Please accept my apology. I did not realize this was the case. > >Humbly, >Susan > >>Hello Susan, (this is just an email and not posted to any newsgroup) >> >>With all due respect I think you've been little too harsh on this poster >>considering the fact that in most likelihood he is not even Baha'i. >Even >>if he is Baha'i we are told to look at our own shortcomings first. >> >>Please remember that this messages are posted to many >newsgroups >>such as Islamic, Pakistan, Iran, Baha'i and anyone could pick up and >>respond to an article. The individual not necessarily a Baha'i. > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 1998 10:29 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: Please also post a "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com & crosspost to talk.religion.misc FYI Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Sunday, April 26, 1998 10:15 AM Subject: Please also post a "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com & crosspost to talk.religion.misc >Bahai-faith@makelist.com should now be set up to accept courtesy >copies, a "cc," from non-subscribers. Anyone may also access the >Archives for the list at the address given below. Cc-ing your message >to the bahai-faith list will allow people with only email capabilities to >follow along and participate in the discussion on alt.religion.bahai. > >Similarly, simultaneously crossposting to talk.religion.bahai will permit >people with Usenet access only to the Big 8 hierarchy to read and post >back to alt.religon.bahai. > >While these are stop-gap measures for compensating for the lack of >talk.religion.bahai, they're the best that can be done at the moment. > >If most people posting to alt.religion.bahai would choose to cc and >crosspost in these ways, it would help a lot people who want to >discuss the Bahai faith in an unmoderated forum to do so. > >There are presently 11 people subscribed to bahai-faith@makelist.com. >I hope before long it will be back up to the 19 who were subscribed to >the coollist version and will grow beyond that number too. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 1998 10:34 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Re: Fw: Da'wa to bahais fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: Frederick Glaysher ; talisman@umich.edu ; bahai-faith@coollist.com Date: Wednesday, April 15, 1998 3:37 PM Subject: Re: Fw: Da'wa to bahais Fred, Why don't these guys spend their time on the far more important work of trying to bring Islam back from the brink of a dark fundamentalist abyss instead of wasting it documenting a few relatively minor idiosyncratic instances of Baha'i behavior and using such stuff as the basis for garnering support for their uncivilized, vile threats? Remember that Abdu'l-Baha said (possibly cited in diplomatic documents [on Jonah Winter's web site] from Iranian officials in Paris at the time Abdu'l-Baha visited there) that this Cause would *flourish* because of the small minded and warped nature of such criticisms (this was probably at the time that some dissembling Baha'is were getting in trouble by deceiving and embarassing christian missionaries in Iran!). I have noticed that these types of criticisms are usually not made by people that have really attempted to comprehensively study the universalist and progressive aspects of the Baha'i faith. In my opinion, most sophisticated and progressive people with any discernment that are investigating the Baha'i faith will find this kind of criticism at least mildly repugnant *on its face*, and will probably realize what a a poor reflection it is on the ethical and scholarly capacity of some elements of the muslim community. Clearly, in any religious movement, you are eventually going to have some people that are overly "enthusiastic", and abuse family and social relationships. If we set out on the task of documenting every single instance of similar religious abuse by muslims throughout history (or even currently), it seems like we would be busy for a very long time. I hope these folks will decide to put their energy into creating positive change in the world instead of further lowering themselves by getting off on gratuitously insulting and putting down other people's religion. EP ps, feel free to forward ---------------------------------------------------------------------- On 15 Apr 98 at 7:47, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" > Subject: Fw: Da'wa to bahais > Date sent: Wed, 15 Apr 1998 07:47:09 -0400 > FYI > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > Listserv: bahai-faith@coollist.com > (Subscribe at www.coollist.com, or, if you have only email capability, > send me a message requesting you be added to the list.) > -----Original Message----- > From: afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca > Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian > Date: Tuesday, April 14, 1998 12:18 PM > Subject: Da'wa to bahais > > > >Peace be upon all those that receive true guidance, > > > >Praise be to God there have been several brothers who have contacted me and > I > >am organizing a dawa mission for bahais. Anyone out there who also wishes > to > >help in this most wondrous cause of God please contact me, Afshin > Afrashteh. > > > >There is a site on the internet which mashallah is having a major impact. > > > >It is addressed as : > > > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > > > >Our aim is to grow this da'wa movement and to eliminate bahaism in the 21st > >century just as many previous sects of Islam were eliminated in the past by > >the efforts of da'is in the cause of Allah. > > > >Please contact me at afrashteh@geocities.com if you are ready to > >commit yourself to this wondrous cause. > > > >The efforts have already born fruit directly in several bahais converting > to > >Islam. In addition to that, the site has been very effective judging from > the > >number of non-bahais both muslim and non-muslim who have emailed me > thanking > >me (all thanks go to Allah swt) and saying how their bahai "friends" had > >misled them and confused them. 2 of these former bahais are now actively > doing > >da'wa to bahais including one very recently who was active in > >soc.religion.bahai. Also several of these brothers and sisters who were > misled > >by their so-called bahai "friends" and "fiances" (now ex-fiances) wish to > help > >out. Will you also not join in this jihad? > > > >Peace. > > > > > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- > >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 26, 1998 11:01 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Cc: talisman Subject: makelist setup FYI: List Policies This page allows you to edit your list policies. Please define some basic list policies: Subscriptions: Anyone may join the list. Moderation: The list is not moderated. Postings: Messages can be sent to the list by anyone. Archive: Access to the archive is public. Reply-To: Replies to messages are sent to the entire list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 6:18 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Book Review (not Bahai) -- IMMORTALITY OR RESURRECTION? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert A. Little wrote in message <6i1dri$5mb$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Jarrod and Eva Williamson: > >I have read through your review of Immortality or Resurrection? and found it >interesting. > >As I understand, the conclusion seems to be that humans have an end, that >there is no life beyond death. "Totally mortal" and "without the premise of >inherent immortality" are two of the expressions used that assist me to this >conclusion. > >I include, for your perusal, a portion of a letter written by Shoghi >Effendi, Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, on December 31, 1937: > >"With regard to the soul of man. According to the Baha'i Teachings the human >soul starts with the formation of the human enbroyo, and continues to >develop and pass through endless stages of existence after its separation >from the body. Its progress is thus infinite." > >There are numerous similar passages which flesh out this principle: The soul >has a beginning, but no end. Its journey is towards God, passing through an >endless, an infinite number of worlds, each one closer to God. > >". . .First concerning the human soul and its true nature. According to the >Baha'i conception, the soul of man, or in other words his inner spiritual >self or reality, is not dualistic. There is no such thing, as the >Zoroastrians believe, as a double reality in man, a definite higher self and >a lower self. These two tendencies for good or evil are but manifestations >of a single reality or self. The latter is capable of development in either >way. All depends fundamentally on the training or education which man >receives. Human nature is made up of possibilities both for good and evil. >True religion can enable it to soar in the highest realm of the spirit, >while its absence can, as we already witness around us, cause it to fall to >the lowest depths of degradation and misery." >(from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual, May 25, >1936.) > > >I hope this tiny portion of the Writings of the Baha'i Faith will in some >way assist in understanding the Baha'i viewpoint of immortality and the >human soul. > >If you have questions or comments, I will of course be happy to answer as >best I can. > >Respectfully, > >Robert A. Little >Jarrod and Eva Williamson wrote in message ><35442D53.1731D242@pacbell.net>... >>IMMORTALITY OR RESURRECTION? >>Book Review >>Jarrod J. Williamson >>UCLA Dept. Chemical Engineering >> > > >. The Heaven's Gate cult would not have >>committed >>suicide to fly off to a UFO behind the Hale-Bopp comet if they had known >> >>that they are *totally mortal.* The Channelling craze with its false >>gospel of achieving higher planes of consciousness is heavily dependent >>upon man having an immortal soul and would die of without the premise of >> >>inherent immortality > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 6:19 AM Subject: fw Re: bahai harassment fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert A. Little wrote in message <6i1e3o$mq4$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Mr. Salah M.: > >I have not gotten any postings these last two days - perhaps the server is >down. I would like to know of any progress in searching out the culprit? > >Please let us know when you learn anything. > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 6:20 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Entry-By-Troops? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert A. Little wrote in message <6i1eub$b2g$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... > >Scott P. Duncan wrote in message <35409415.FBA39A5F@mindspring.com>... > >>Perhaps you can comment on those studies, since I am not aware of the >datawhich >>came from them or who conducted them or when or where. I'm not >>trying to cast dispersions on your statement, by the way, I'd really love >to >>know more about the studies. I'm not sure the results were disseminated >>widely. Did they say things about the motivations behind declarations, >etc.? > >I have next to nothing in the way of light to shed on the nature or content >of the surveys/studies made. One was conducted under the auspices of the >National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States in 1997. Big >Question Mark. The other was conducted by an organization outside of the >Baha'i Faith in the last two years of so. I don't know/remember any details >beyond my surprise that we were being studied. > >I would love more information, and if anyone has it, please share. > >Robert A. Little >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:50 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Re(2): Baha'i harassment?? fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3544DDC2.4F11@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote: >>Peace be upon all those that seek true guidance, > >Wa alaykuma salaam. > >I hope you have had some success in tracking down the perpetrator(s) of >the spamming of your e-mailbox. > >[snip] >> . . . . I am afraid only bahai resort to these >>tactics of false persecution. . . . > >What benefit is there in throwing around accusations without any way >of supporting them? > >> . . . Regardless of how desirable an outcome the >>elimination of bahaism is, . . . > >With repeated statements such as this, you have staked out a territory >in a loathsome neighborhood. Based on your proclamations of faith in >God, I'm sure you do not mean to keep the kind of company that that puts >you in, so at the risk of appearing to point to another's sins I hope >you will reconsider (not out of any concern that you could achieve such >a thing, but rather that it cannot contribute positively to >interreligious dialogue and understanding). > >Any look at history would show who the neighbors are, so I won't list >them, except to point out that next door is the Iranian government's >stated policy of eliminating the Baha'is (I'll repost this document >separately on news:alt.religion.bahai and news:soc.rights.human ). > >> . . . I have a duty to God to be truthful regardless of >>any situation. > >At the same time, IMHO, one has many obligations to God, including an >ongoing search for truth. > >>As the Holy Qur'an says to the believers: >> >>"...do not let the dislike of a people to deter you from upholding justice. >>Uphold justice. That is indeed nearest to piety.". > >How does proclaiming a desire to "eliminate" or "get rid of" a religion >conform to either piety or the upholding of justice? > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:52 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Question on references to Prophets fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >X-no-archive: yes >In article <6htung$up4$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gata@aol.com writes: >>From: gata@aol.com >>Subject: Re: Question on references to Prophets >>Date: Sat, 25 Apr 1998 19:22:08 -0600 > >>In article <6htiik$in7$1@eve.enteract.com>, >> "Susan Heintz" wrote: >>> >>> I have noticed that some people, when referring to Muhammad or Jesus Christ, >>> have written (SAAW) or (PBUH) after it. I was wondering what that means. >>> >>> Thank you for illuminating this for me. >>> >>> Susan >>> >>> > >>I don't know what SAAW means, but PBUH means "Peace be upon Him." > >Most likley it is SAWA, acronym for Arabic words, meaning, Peace be upon him >and his family. (salawatollah alayhe wa aaleh.) > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:53 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: The 9 point star fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Lars Ahlström wrote in message <01bd7118$1a5b8080$b8a2f482@win95>... >Hallo there! > >I have question about the symbol of the 9-point star. >Is it also used in the Islamic world, and if so, symbolizing what? > >Kind regards, > >Lars > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:54 PM Subject: fw Re: Satan fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com rfranck@cyberback.com wrote in message <6i23ei$i8o$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Hi. This is my first post here. I've been a Baha'i for 25 years. My sister >is a Christian that is sometimes harassed by 'Satan' and his 'demons'. >Anybody know any Bible Scriptures that say Satan is not symbolic? I've been >looking and all I've found is reference to the devil, not even capitalized. >Isn't there a battle between Satan and God in the Bible, or am I getting that >confused with the Book of Mormon (was one as a kid). Any help is much >appreciated. Thanks, Cindi > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 1998 1:55 PM Subject: fw Re: Satan fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Lars Ahlström wrote in message <01bd7130$65c944e0$10acf482@win95>... >Hi Cindi. > >Well Satan,The Devil, or (number of other names) is basically symbolic >names. >Then some people raise this force up to a level where it takes form and >becomes a humanlike person. (The more fear one has inside, the clearer one >sees the infernality of the evil force) >Devil spelled backwards is "Lived" i.e. the one that use to live. Now dead. > >There are as many forms of definitions as there have been human bodys >walking around this universe. No one, and all of them are totally right. >:o) > >If You ask me, I think God is one. The quality of God is absolute power. >I.e. positive and negative force enmass. The negative force, we often >reference to satan, hell, gehenna, etc. God uses whatever force it needs to >create the Environment of the universe. So it can materilize itself. >Anyform is valid as long as eternal love can arise and function in some >way. Love is the harmony state exactly within the room between the two >forces. >We can illustrate the way to create, God-style, with the Ringer of >Notredame. When the bell is still, harmony is allaround, piece is the >state. Then the bell starts swinging, the clap hits the bronze and >everything explodes. This one Big Bang. When he stops his work, the bell >continues to vibrate and the waves fades into harmony again. Until next >time. Over and over. >Big bang was not the beginning. It was one of endless explosions, that will >end with a contraction, that will end with a explosion, that, >will.......bla bla (energy is eternally constant) > >But that is my personal view. See? > >Kind regards, > >Lars, > >a.k.a. Phil O´Sofer > > > > > > > >rfranck@cyberback.com skrev i inlägg <6i23ei$i8o$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> Hi. This is my first post here. I've been a Baha'i for 25 years. My >sister >> is a Christian that is sometimes harassed by 'Satan' and his 'demons'. >> Anybody know any Bible Scriptures that say Satan is not symbolic? I've >been >> looking and all I've found is reference to the devil, not even >capitalized. >> Isn't there a battle between Satan and God in the Bible, or am I getting >that >> confused with the Book of Mormon (was one as a kid). Any help is much >> appreciated. Thanks, Cindi >> >> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:51 AM Subject: fw Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims fw Newsgroups trimmed to trm -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Mike Buonsanto wrote in message <3544C701.ED5AE78B@haystack.mit.edu>... >Karosh Soltani wrote: >> Who do you think is worst in the sight of Allah? Hitler >> who killed million of people (many may have gone to >> heaven because of that) or Bahaullah who mislead and >> continues to mislead people from the path of salvation? > >This is truly an amazing statement! > >Now we know that Hilter was directly responsible for the deaths >of tens of millions of human beings. He taught a philosophy of >hatred, intolerance and bigotry. 6 million innocent children, >women, and men died in his gas chambers. > >Now Baha'u'llah specifically instructed His followers to spread >their religion by words only, not by the sword. Baha'u'llah >taught love for God and humanity. The purpose >of Baha'is is to promote whatever will bring people together >in love and harmony. Because of Baha'u'llah's teachings >people of all nations now accept Muhammad (pbuh) as the prophet >of God and the Qur'an as the word of God. If you go to the remotest >corners of the Earth like Tonga or Fiji or Greenland you will >find persons from Christian background who now revere Muhammad and >the Holy Qur'an because of the Teachings of Baha'u'llah. What >is so evil about this? Mr Soltani can you find one nice word to >say about the Baha'i Faith? Baha'is have plenty of good to say >about Islam to people in every corner of Earth who now know >that Muhammad (pbuh) is the prophet of God because the Baha'is >have taught them this. > >Mr Soltani is certainly entitled to his opinion that Baha'u'llah >was a false prophet, but to imply that Baha'u'llah was worse >than Hitler makes one question Mr Soltani's sense of fairness >and justice. > >If we were to follow Mr Soltani's advice we should reject >Muhammad (pbuh) also as Jesus Christ clearly stated in the Bible >that we should beware of false prophets, and that Jesus Christ >is the alpha and omega, the first and the last, the only begotten >Son of God. Of course Mr Soltani does not take these quotations >from the Bible literally. They have a symbolic meaning, as >explained by His prophet Muhammad (pbuh)in the Holy Qur'an. In the >same way the symbolic meanings of the Qur'an have been explained >by Baha'u'llah. My point is that if you choose to interpret >the Bible symbolically when it says to beware of false prophets >you should also allow others to do the same with the Qur'an. > >Saying "beware of false prophets" as stated in the Bible and the >Qur'an is not the same as saying "all who claim prophethood >are false". If this were true, then God forbid, we would have to >reject Muhammad (pbuh) also. > >I can assure you that Baha'is love God and want to follow His >divine will. We only disagree with you over what God's will is >in this day. > >If I say I believe in God what right do you have to say I do >not believe in God? If I say I am a believer what right do you >have to call me an unbeliever and to say I will burn in hell >if I do not accept your interpretation of the Holy Qur'an >which we both love? Talk to the humanists, rationalists and >other atheists who are found in great abundance in the world. >Instead of trying to eliminate the Baha'i Faith, how about trying >to convince atheists to believe in God, and that He is always >with us trying to guide us in His ways and lead us to Him. That >is a belief that Baha'is and Muslims share. > >Baha'u'llah told the Baha'is to consort with peoples of all >religions in a spirit of utmost fellowship and love. What is >so wicked and shameful about this? You see we love and respect >Islam and all the divine religions. This may seem strange for >you to hear, but it is possible for you and I to disagree and yet >love and respect each other. In my humble opinion, that is the >will of God in this day. > >Now I would never have accepted Muhammad and the Qur'an without >believing in the Baha'i Faith first and I can assure you the >same is true for many who were formerly Christians. One teaching >of the Baha'i Faith which is most attractive to me is the >agreement of science and religion. These are both aspects of >the same divine truth. Now when the Bible and the Qur'an says >the graves will open and the dead will be raised to life I >know it has a symbolic meaning because I believe in science. >You cannot convince me that what science says is impossible >must happen because the symbolic meaning explained by >Baha'u'llah agrees best with logic and reason. Just as science >has proven that the world was not created in 7 days as stated >by the Bible, the meaning of the Bible there is symbolic. Thus >God has always revealed teachings suited to the capabilities >of the people to understand. > >One common false claim is that Baha'is worship Baha'u'llah >instead of God. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you >peruse any Baha'i prayer book you will see that the prayers >are addressed to God. > >To illustrate my point I will quote the short obligatory prayer >said by Baha'is at noon each day: > >"I bear witness O my God that Thou hast created me to know Thee >and to worship Thee. I testify at this moment to my powerlessness >and to Thy might, to my poverty and to Thy wealth. There is none >other God but Thee, the help in peril, the self-subsisting." > >I expect that Mr Soltani may respond with a line-by-line >refutation of my post. I am sorry that I have a full-time >job and may be too busy to spend endless hours in argumentation >with him. I don't expect him to agree with me at all, but I would >certainly have a higher opinion of his sense of justice and >fairness if he would be gracious enough to retract his assertion >that Baha'u'llah was worse than the evil megalomaniac Adolf Hitler. > >Sincerely, >Michael Buonsanto ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:52 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: The 9 point star fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Robert A. Little wrote in message <6i2n1p$9sn$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Lars Ahlstrom: > >Hello to you, and thank you for your kind question. > >The nine-pointed star utilized as the symbol of the Baha'i Faith is quite >different from the five-pointed star(and crescent) which is the symbol for >Islam. There are lots of stars in religion, eh? > >The number nine symbolizes the Baha'i Faith, and the nine-pointed star is >used to illustrate it. > >Nine, in the decimal system, is the last, and the highest number. In one >sense, it is exactly equal to all other numbers, it has a untary value of >one, just as the others. But in another sense, it is the highest, and >contains within it all the other numbers; 1+8, 2+7, 3+6, 4+5. > >The Baha'i Faith is the latest in a series of Divine Revelations from God, >and in that sense, is no different than the current day of the week would be >from any other day.. The same sun, but returned with a new name. The light >is the same, only the name is different. > >However, to use a different simile, Religion is like a school, with a series >of Teachers, each of which adds to what was given by the previous Teacher. >Baha'u'llah, the Author of this divinely ordained Dispensation, has revealed >the Word of God for the people of this age, and for the future. The purpose >of God is that humanity put aside all its squabbles and unite in one >diverse, just, peaceful and loving society that includes all the peoples of >the world, but does not include the wars, famines, pestilences, hatreds and >injustices that are the hallmarks of present-day society. A tall order. > >Baha'is are quietly setting about building the foundation for that future >today. > >With respect, > >Robert A. Little >Lars Ahlström wrote in message <01bd7118$1a5b8080$b8a2f482@win95>... >>Hallo there! >> >>I have question about the symbol of the 9-point star. >>Is it also used in the Islamic world, and if so, symbolizing what? >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Lars >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:54 AM Subject: fw Re: Iran's Blueprint for Destruction of Baha'is (was Re(2): Baha'i harassment??) fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3544E052.1BE1@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Following is the now infamous secret 1991 document of the Iranian >government on how to "deal" with the Baha'is which was given to UN human >rights officials in 1992 (as I remember; the attached copy I received >via E-mail). Basically it declares Baha'is to be at best 2nd class >citizens. One of the most telling items, though is B.6, in which the >government declares its aim to "destroy the cultural roots" of the >Baha'i faith (though it is curious that it sees the roots as "outside of >the country" when it is clear that the faith originally arose within >Iran). B.5 calls for establishment of a section of a propaganda >organization to "deal with" Baha'is -- it is legitimate to ask what >activities this may be undertaking on the internet. > >A few other notes. While A.2 sounds reasonable (no penalties vs. >Baha'is without reason), the death sentences given to Baha'is for their >beliefs shows that the govt.'s "reason" includes citizens' beliefs. >Also, in reading reference to Baha'is being able to be enrolled in >schools unless they are identified as Baha'is (B.1) it is helpful to >know that one must identify one's religion on most official forms in >Iran. C.2 is also insideous--passports are in practice regularly denied >to Baha'is, as I have heard (why else would significant numbers of >Baha'is have to cross the border without passport?). > DZO >______________________________________________________________________ > > [TRANSLATION FROM PERSIAN] > [Text in square brackets and emphases added by translator] > >In the Name of God! > > The Islamic Republic of Iran > The Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council > >Number: 132// .... >Date: 6/12/69 [25th February 1991] >Enclosure: None > > CONFIDENTIAL > >[from] Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani > [Secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Council] >[to] Head of the Office of Esteemed Leader [Khameni] > >Greetings! > >After greetings, with reference to the letter #1/783 dated 10/10/69 >[31st December 1990], concerning the instructions of the Esteemed Leader >which had been conveyed to the respected President regarding the Baha'i >question, we inform you that, since the respected President and Head of >the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council had referred this question to >this Council for consideration and study, it was placed on the Council's >agenda of session #128 on 16/11/69 [5th February 1991], and session #119 >of 2/11/69 [22nd January 1991]. In addition to the above, and further >to the [results of the] discussion held in this regard in session #112 >of 2/5/66 [24th July 1987] presided over by the Esteemed Leader (head >and member of the Supreme Council), the recent views and directives >given by the Esteemed Leader regarding the Baha'i question were conveyed >to the Supreme Council. In consideration of the contents of the >Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as the religious >and civil laws and general policies of the country, these matters were >carefully studied and decisions pronounced. > >In arriving at the decisions and proposing reasonable ways to deal with >the above question, due consideration was given to the wishes of the >Esteemed Leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Khameni], namely, >that "in this regard a specific policy should be devised in such a way >that everyone will understand what should or should not be done." >Consequently, the following proposals and recommendations resulted from >these discussions. > >The respected President of the Islamic Republic of Iran [Rafsanjani], as >well as the Head of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council, while >approving these recommendations, instructed us to convey them to the >Esteemed Leader [Khameni] so that appropriate action may be taken >according to his guidance. > >SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS > >A. General status of the Baha'is within the county's system > 1. They will not be expelled from the country without reason. > 2. They will not be arrested, imprisoned, or penalized without > reason. > 3. The Government's dealings with them must be in such a way that > their progress and development are blocked. >B. Educational and cultural status > 1. They can be enrolled in schools provided that they have not > identified themselves as Baha'is. > 2. Preferably, they shall be enrolled in schools which have a >strong > and imposing religious ideology. > 3. They must be expelled from universities, either in the admission > process or during the course of their studies, once it becomes > known that they are Baha'is. > 4. Their political (espionage) activities must be dealt with > according to appropriate Government laws and policies, and their > religious and propaganda activities should be answered by giving > them religious and cultural responses, as well as propaganda. > 5. Propaganda institutions (such as the Islamic Propaganda > Organization) must establish an independent section to deal with > the propaganda and religious activities of the Baha'is. > 6. A plan must be devised to confront and destroy their cultural > roots outside the country. >C. Legal and social status > 1. Permit them a modest livelihood as is available to the general > population. > 2. To the extent that it does not encourage them to be Baha'is, it > is permissible to provide for them the means for ordinary living > in accordance with the general rights given to every Iranian > citizen, such as ration booklets, passports, burial >certificates, > work permits, etc. > 3. Deny them employment if they identify themselves as Baha'is. > 4. Deny them any position of influence, such as in the educational > sector, etc. > > Wishing you divine confirmations, > Secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council > Dr Seyyed Mohammad Golpaygani > [Signature] > >******************* > >[Note in the handwriting of Mr Khameni] > >In the Name of God! >The decision of the Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council seems >sufficient. I thank you gentlemen for your attention and efforts. > >[signed] Ali Khameni. >_______________________________________________________________________ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:55 AM Subject: fw Re: Quotes of Baha'u'llah and Bahai photos fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Ron Stephens wrote in message <35452817.474D@ibm.net>... >I have written a short JavaScript which posts random quotes from >Baha'u'llah on your web page. All you have to do is to copy the >text >file containing the javascript and paste it to your web page, and >you >will have a different quote from Baha'u'llah appear each time >someone >clicks on your web page. > You can easily customize the script if you like, to include >quotes >form the Bab, Abdul Baha, etc. > Also, I have a similar random picture Javascript which can be >used >to show a random picture of various sites of the Faith. > Of course, the scripts are freeware and can be copied and/or >given >to as many peole as might wnat to use them. > You will find these scripts on my web site at >https://www.awaretek.com >Allah'u'abha! >Ron Stephens >rdsteph@ibm.net-- > >-- ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:05 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star fw -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >I thought the nine pointed star represented the word "BHA'", which is the Most >Great Name in Arabic . In the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah states: >"Say: this is the hidden knowledge which shall never change, since its >beginning is with nine, the symbol that betokeneth the concealed and the >manifest, the inviolable and unapproachably exalted Name." (p.28). >The Abjad value of the word BHA" is 9 because B=2, H=5, A=1 and the ' =1. >There are 3 letters in the greatest name in Arabic, and in symbolism 3 is >usually indicative of perfection (the Manifestation, the Holy Spirit and God). >3x3, or 9, is a superlative of 3, which indicates absolute perfection. >Just thought I'd throw in my 3 cents worth ;) >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star -----Original Message----- From: Mark A. Foster To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:20 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >Re: the number 9: > >In Kabbalistic symbology, "3" is often regarded as the >number of >masculine perfection, "6" as the number of feminine perfection, >and "9" as the number of perfection in general. Of course, 3 >+ 6 >= 9. I know more about kabbalism than about abjad, but I would >assume that there is probably some equivalence. > >The actual representation of the Baha'i Faith is a five-pointed >star (the abjad value of the Arabic letter "ha" and of "Bab"). >In addition, if one looks at a pentacle, it resembles the human >body (one head, two arms, and two legs); and, to my >understanding, in Baha'i symbology, it represents the Perfect >Man, the Prophet (as the two pentacles, in the Baha'i >Ringstone, >stand for the Bab and Baha'u'llah). > >The nine-pointed star is, as has already been said, a symbol >for >the Greatest Name (Baha), which is, again, based on its abjad >value. > >Respectfully, Mark (A. Foster, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology) >owner@sociologist.com * https://galaxycorp.com/pageme (paging) >(913) 469-8500, ext.3376 * https://surf.to/mark (my 4 web sites) >AOL keyword: Baha'i * https://surf.to/dps (11 listservs & more) >https://www.customforum.com/bahaiforum (Delphi Baha'i Forum) > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:54 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star fw -----Original Message----- From: Lars Ahlström Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 7:55 PM Subject: Re: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >Phu...this sounds more and more as numerology. I mean, come on. This is >what loonies on the mental hospital sits and mumbles about. And whatif >there is a prophet #10 pending??? All hope fades away ?? :o) >Number ten is the only true logical number as it holds the true/false >(good/evil) symbols of zero & one. >Yin & yan. That I find very interesting. See? I can form numerology into >whatever I want. That is not truth, it is a formation of my own >selfishness. >In nature the most beautiful reference to nine is the amount of months a >woman carries a child. But i does not proove any relation to the nine >prophets of mankind. (XOUTP) > >As You can see I am sort of critical to the motions of crazyness in this >beautiful faith. Allready, after 100 years from the source, we can see how >things get dizzier. >Another thing is the double standard respect for the names, and all bonding >to phrases as (PBUH) etc. What is this? >Let me take an example. > >I log into a chat website, at Iran-Online, using the nick-name >"Bahaullah". >Coniously doing it in order to learn relations among persian persons. >So, I get harassed by some moslems. And, and this is the funny thing, I get >threathened to my life from claimed Bahais. They tell me they know my ID >and are coming after me, etc. >Of course I understand this is young students way to express anger. But it >shows me, the inner meaning by the law of idoltry. So we learn our kids to >worship human beings again? >It is not a crime to call Yourself Jesus, or Bahaullah. It is a crime to >threaten people and to call other people 4 leter words. Of course, again, >this comes from young unmuture people, BUT - they claim they are Bahais. >And this is important. >I am new to this faith. I am still studying, and I am a swede. Maybe I have >not learned the code yet, but I find these things alarming. >What I was feeling during this chat-session, was that my spritual brother >Bahaullah, was watching me, and his eyes was filled with tears. Tears of >sorrow mixed with tears of laughter. And I just thought: I am with You. >Not with them.... > >The ytruth is witin. Not without. > >Kind regards, > >Lars > >a.k.a. Phil O´Sofer > > > >Frederick Glaysher skrev i inlägg ><6i4nll$7ns@news3.newsguy.com>... >> >> fw >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: LaAeterna >> To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 9:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >> >> >> >I thought the nine pointed star represented the word "BHA'", which is >the >> Most >> >Great Name in Arabic . In the Aqdas, Baha'u'llah states: >> >"Say: this is the hidden knowledge which shall never change, since its >> >beginning is with nine, the symbol that betokeneth the concealed and the >> >manifest, the inviolable and unapproachably exalted Name." (p.28). >> >The Abjad value of the word BHA" is 9 because B=2, H=5, A=1 and the ' >=1. >> >There are 3 letters in the greatest name in Arabic, and in symbolism 3 >is >> >usually indicative of perfection (the Manifestation, the Holy Spirit and >> God). >> >3x3, or 9, is a superlative of 3, which indicates absolute perfection. >> >Just thought I'd throw in my 3 cents worth ;) >> >Nancy >> >---- >> >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >-- >> >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >> >> >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:55 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Quotes of Baha'u'llah and Bahai photos -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Quotes of Baha'u'llah and Bahai photos >On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 20:51:35 -0400, Ron Stephens >wrote: > >>I have written a short JavaScript which posts random quotes from >>Baha'u'llah on your web page. All you have to do is to copy the >>text >>file containing the javascript and paste it to your web page, and >>you >>will have a different quote from Baha'u'llah appear each time >>someone >>clicks on your web page. > >The script appears to be very interesting. I am just starting to try >it out, but it looks to be very useful. > >Thanks for posting this! > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:55 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Satan -----Original Message----- From: darricke@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 11:04 AM Subject: Re: Satan >Dear Cindi, > From my understanding of the Faith Satan is real. He is our 'lower Self'. He >exists in all of us, and yes, he does fight against God all the time. You can >call him our "Ego". The Apostle Paul calls the the Natural Man "an enemy to >God". The word 'Satan' in Hebrew means "adversary/enemy". Also, demons are >evil personalities that our mind creates. Although they don't have a separate >existence from us, they are nevertheless real. If the mind can create one >personality, it can create more than one in the same person. >Darrick Evenson > > > >In article <6i23ei$i8o$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > rfranck@cyberback.com wrote: >> >> Hi. This is my first post here. I've been a Baha'i for 25 years. My >sister >> is a Christian that is sometimes harassed by 'Satan' and his 'demons'. >> Anybody know any Bible Scriptures that say Satan is not symbolic? I've been >> looking and all I've found is reference to the devil, not even capitalized. >> Isn't there a battle between Satan and God in the Bible, or am I getting >that >> confused with the Book of Mormon (was one as a kid). Any help is much >> appreciated. Thanks, Cindi > >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: fw Re: Satan fw rfranck@cyberback.com wrote in message <6i4qs4$bkd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6i4nkt$3q0$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Dear Cindi, >> From my understanding of the Faith Satan is real. He is our 'lower Self'. He >> exists in all of us, and yes, he does fight against God all the time. You can >> call him our "Ego". The Apostle Paul calls the the Natural Man "an enemy to >> God". The word 'Satan' in Hebrew means "adversary/enemy". Also, demons are >> evil personalities that our mind creates. Although they don't have a separate >> existence from us, they are nevertheless real. If the mind can create one >> personality, it can create more than one in the same person. >> Darrick Evenson >> >> In article <6i23ei$i8o$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, >> rfranck@cyberback.com wrote: >> > >> > Hi. This is my first post here. I've been a Baha'i for 25 years. My >> sister >> > is a Christian that is sometimes harassed by 'Satan' and his 'demons'. >> > Anybody know any Bible Scriptures that say Satan is not symbolic? I've been >> > looking and all I've found is reference to the devil, not even capitalized. >> > Isn't there a battle between Satan and God in the Bible, or am I getting >> that >> > confused with the Book of Mormon (was one as a kid). Any help is much >> > appreciated. Thanks, Cindi >> >> > >> >> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> > >From my understanding of the Bahai Faith, Satan is symbolic of evil, not a >being. While I appreciate the responses, what I'm looking for is Bible >Scriptures about Satan, since the Bible is the only source of knowledge my >Christian sister will accept. Thanks. Cindi > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:02 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims newsgroups trimmed. Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >X-no-archive: yes >In article <3544C701.ED5AE78B@haystack.mit.edu> Mike Buonsanto writes: >>Now Baha'u'llah specifically instructed His followers to spread >>their religion by words only, not by the sword. Baha'u'llah > >You forgot that the pen, is much sharper than sword!! Then why have Bahais chosen to oppose talk.religion.bahai with the "sword" instead of defending and spreading their faith with the "pen"? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:04 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: bahai harassment afshin.afrashteh@utoronto.ca wrote in message <6i4u30$gv5$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Peace be upon those that follow guidance, > >I went and spoke with Ms.Martha Parrott (U of T Information Commons >Supervisor) today regarding this matter. > >She uploaded the relevant emails on their own software that shows the sources. >It showed a huge mumbo jumbled of stuff designed to coverup the track. She has >sent the email to the people responsible for email services and they will >handle it. She assures me they will do their best. > >I have no idea if this is appropriate but some IP numbers on the printout I >have here infront of me (I am not sure if these are innocent people on the >mailing list or not) are: > >received from bureau7.utcc.utoronto.ca (128.100.132.17) by >bureau2.utcc.utoronto.ca (this is from me to the U of T Info Commons I think) > >received from NO-IDENT-SERVICE@mail2.geocities.com (209.1.224.30) by >bureau7.utcc.utoronto.ca (this is from my geocities forwarding address to my u >of T address I think) > >received from imo23.mx.aol.com (198.81.17.67) by geocities.com (I am not sure >if this is the person or just someone on the list sending email) > >received from OrionOG@aol.com by imo23.mx.aol.com > >X-mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 18 > > >----------------- > >As I said, the U of T is still investigating. I requested several more times >to be taken of the list but to no avail. I will let you know what happens, God >willing. > >https://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3016/index.htm > >Answering Bahaullah > >------------------------- > > > > > >In article <6i1e3o$mq4$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>, > "Robert A. Little" wrote: >> >> Mr. Salah M.: >> >> I have not gotten any postings these last two days - perhaps the server is >> down. I would like to know of any progress in searching out the culprit? >> >> Please let us know when you learn anything. >> >> With respect, >> >> Robert A. Little >> >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:30 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber please post to it? I'd appreciate it if a non-subscriber would post again to bahai-faith@makelist.com. The list seems to be up and running well now. The bug that prevented non-subscribers from crossposting to it has been fixed but remains untested. It should work whether one is posting or cc-ing from a newsgroup or another mailing list. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 8:30 AM Subject: test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber please post to it? I'd appreciate it if a non-subscriber would post again to bahai-faith@makelist.com. The list seems to be up and running well now. The bug that prevented non-subscribers from crossposting to it has been fixed but remains untested. It should work whether one is posting or cc-ing from a newsgroup or another mailing list. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:10 PM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star ----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >Lars, although you may scoff at what you call "numerology," that is only >because of certain preconceived notions you may have. Don't you know the >phrase (coined by physicists, and not philosophers) that "mathematics are the >language of the universe?" Another phrase I have heard used is "God is a >mathematician>" These show an understanding of the fact that when you begin >to look around you at the universe, you see a constant repetition of certain >numbers or combination of numbers. Take, for example, fractals. There is a >very simple algebraic formula involved, but when used repeatedly, it turns >into the most amazingly complex geometric pattern imaginable. When scientists >look at nature, they see fractals everywhere, and have determined that it is >one of the underlying mathematical formulas of the universe. Or the Golden >Mean, also repeated throughout nature. > As it happens, the science of letters and numbers is used throughout the >Holy Books and indicates nothing "magical " or "voodoo" but simply that there >are certain ordered relationships throughout the universe. Mathematics is >only a language used by human beings in our attempt to understand the >universe. The manifestations have used the languages of humanity to >communicate with us, and therefore have used all the levels of communication, >including numbers and letters in symbolic language to convey subtle spiritual >messages to those who delve deeper than the surface and want more than the >obvious. >That is all, Lars, relax. >As to the people calling you names and threatening you, it is obvious they are >not Baha'is, no matter what they call themselves. A Baha'i is known by his >behavior, not by what he calls himself (pc:he/she). I can call myself a >refrigerator until I am blue in the face, but I am not and never will be one. >If I were you, I would give these idiots none of my time and ignore them, they >are not worth bothering with. >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:11 PM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] using the swrod vs the pen ----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] using the swrod vs the pen >Massoud Ajami asks why Baha'is have chosen to oppose baha'i-talk-religion with >the sword instead of defending their faith with the pen? >Insteresting question. I think this involves something different than what >Baha'u'llah was talking about, though. He (IMO) was referring to the >principle of meek and respectful discussion and consultation, as opposed to >loud, confrontational and threatening "You had better become a believer, or >off with your head" sort of primitive behavior seen in some parts of the >world. >The Baha'is who didn't want to see an unmoderated forum were acting out of >fear (again, IMO). I have found that certain Baha'is hold certain beliefs as >immutable truths, and don't want these examined too closely or too critically. >This usually because they are afraid that if they have to look at them (these >so-called "truths") they might find they are wrong, or distortions of fact, or >self-serving perversions of the Teachings. There is nothing more frightening >to a rigid mind that being told you are wrong: you then have to RE_THINK >everything, which means new accomodations and *whew* new concepts. You might >have to *humble* yourself and admit you were wrong ( nasty business if you are >blessed with alot of pride). So, in order not to go through all that >discomfort, you tell people to shut up loudly and repeatedly, and interfere >with their attempts to look at these *truths* critically. >That's not using a sword. It's actually quite ineffective as a war dance, >because people who want to examine things with open eyes just walk around the >dancers and go on with their business. >nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:13 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic (was Re: [Bahaism]: Differences...) fw -----Original Message----- From: Donald Zhang Osborn Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic (was Re: [Bahaism]: Differences...) >> Karosh Soltani wrote in a posting critical of the Baha'i faith): >> > Who do you think is worst in the sight of Allah? Hitler >> > who killed million of people (many may have gone to >> > heaven because of that) or Bahaullah who mislead and >> > continues to mislead people from the path of salvation? >> >Mike Buonsanto wrote in reply: >> This is truly an amazing statement! >[snip] > >My sentiments also! How can one equate the killing by Hitler & the >Nazis of 9 million people (6 million of them Jews) in concentration >camps and of many others in aggressive warfare as possibly "sending >them to heaven" is beyond me. Then there is the matter of how many >millions were led into killing and hatred of others by the Nazi >ideology, even to this day. One assumes that Karosh got a bit >carried away and should be given the chance to retract and apologize >for such a statement (to Jews and others who suffered under Nazi >persecution and aggression). > >Then to go further to make a comparison (God forbid!) with >Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i revelation carries this gnarled "logic" >to an extreme. One is reminded of Christian hostility to the >Prophet Muhammad (Dante even portrayed Him in the 7th and worst >level of hell). > >Baha'u'llah Himself, of course, endured 40 years of exile, >banishment, and imprisonment for proclaiming the Word of God. >Even if one does not accept Baha'u'llah, one must admit that >the Writings that have come through Him (we believe inspired by God) >exhort the highest character and behavior of all peoples. I don't >know what Karosh finds so terrible in the Baha'i faith that would >lead him to use of such hyperbole in polemic against it. > >If there is a fair comparison involving Hitler and the Nazis, it >is of course the ongoing persecution of Baha'is in Iran. Human >rights organizations have characterized this persecution as "cultural >genocide," and the New York Times compared the Iranian government's >anti-Baha'i policy with Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws against the >Jews. (I have reposted a copy of the translation of the Iranian >government document on alt.religion.bahai & soc.rights.human under >the title "Iran's Blueprint for Destruction of Baha'is" -- or search >https://www.DejaNews.com ) > >I have nothing more to add but to thank Mike for his lengthy and >sagacious reply to Karosh's posting. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:14 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims -----Original Message----- From: Massoud Ajami Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims >X-no-archive: yes >In article <6i74ra$gsr@news3.newsguy.com> "Frederick Glaysher" writes: >>From: "Frederick Glaysher" >>Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to >>Non-Muslims >>Date: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:02:19 -0400 > >>newsgroups trimmed. > >>Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >>>X-no-archive: yes >>>In article <3544C701.ED5AE78B@haystack.mit.edu> Mike Buonsanto >> writes: > >>>>Now Baha'u'llah specifically instructed His followers to spread >>>>their religion by words only, not by the sword. Baha'u'llah >>> >>>You forgot that the pen, is much sharper than sword!! > > >>Then why have Bahais chosen to oppose talk.religion.bahai with the >>"sword" instead of defending and spreading their faith with the "pen"? > >Because the truth prevails and they don't have much of truth! Good example >is that they even don't follow their own teaching! > >BTW, I voted yes on the NG. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:15 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims fw Neil Kelley wrote in message <354859b6.1297247@news.demon.co.uk>... >Haven't you anything else to say? Your boring. > >On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:02:19 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> >>Then why have Bahais chosen to oppose talk.religion.bahai > >Neil Kelley https://www.nkelley.demon.co.uk >A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the >whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and >functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. >Shoghi Effendi. March 11, 1936. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:15 PM Subject: fw Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims fw Neil Kelley wrote in message <354859b6.1297247@news.demon.co.uk>... >Haven't you anything else to say? Your boring. > >On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:02:19 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >> >>Then why have Bahais chosen to oppose talk.religion.bahai > >Neil Kelley https://www.nkelley.demon.co.uk >A mechanism of world inter-communication will be devised, embracing the >whole planet, freed from national hindrances and restrictions, and >functioning with marvellous swiftness and perfect regularity. >Shoghi Effendi. March 11, 1936. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:58 PM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber Thanks. It seems to be working fine now. I received both the message to talisman and the cc to makelist.com. -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:37 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber This is a test reply to talisman, with a "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- On 29 Apr 98 at 8:30, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" , > "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" > Subject: test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber please post to it? > Date sent: Wed, 29 Apr 1998 08:30:18 -0400 > I'd appreciate it if a non-subscriber would post again to > bahai-faith@makelist.com. The list seems to be up and > running well now. The bug that prevented non-subscribers > from crossposting to it has been fixed but remains untested. > > It should work whether one is posting or cc-ing from a > newsgroup or another mailing list. > > Thanks. > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 1998 5:54 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber please post to it? From: Mark A. Foster >If you receive this message, it is working. I am posting it >from >an unsubscribed account. > >Mark Foster Thanks. I hope we won't have to spend so much time on the technical side now. It's taken a lot of effort to find and then move from one list to another.... For those of you who have found this very tedious, I thank you for your patience and forebearance....