Discussion:
What are Baha'i Writings?
(too old to reply)
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-09-20 19:32:47 UTC
Permalink
"compx2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
[SNIP]

"Baha'i writings" as such is an informal, if not colloquial term that, in my
experience, has no consistent definition and the diversity of opinion as to
what constitutes a "Baha'i Writing" lends support to this perception. In
standard English (after Ogden), a term such as "Baha'i writings" could even
be taken to include anything and everything written by any Baha'i at any
time in any standing. May I add that the "acquired infallibility", as it
applies by binary elimination to Exemplar, Guardian and UHJ alike does not
include the authority to redefine existing terms of language (I've a more
detailed discussion of the implication of the two types of infallibilities
at:
http://fieldcraft.eu/topics/bahai/institutional-infallibility-in-the-bahai-writings/index.shtml).

Personally, I prefer to incorporate existing terms to wit:

"Baha'i Literature", encompassing everything concerning the Baha'i Faith;
"Baha'i Scripture", being the only the material attributed to Baha'u'llah
"Baha'i Canon", being explicitly subject to definition by the UHJ

Grouping literature by `Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah is also problematic
owing to the fact that `Abdu'l-Baha, not being a "Manifestation of God" has
only "acquired infallibility" - which grouping is most adequately
represented by the combined authorship of `Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and
the Universal House of Justice. Perhaps the literature of such a group could
be described as, "Baha'i Encyclicals". In spite of the obvious
extra-Catholic analogue, the use of this term would still require
declaration and definition sufficient to the scope of usage due to the lack
of recognition for the term in a Baha'i context.

I'd also add that arguments about the authority or acceptance of literature
(including that with respect to Baha'i interests), completely lack any
relevance to the accuracy or truthfulness of statements within that
literature. It doesn't matter if the author is God Herself, overlapping
magisteria of multiple maxims constitutes an irresolvable error, which
cannot but contradict "essential infallibility". The founding of the Royal
Society and the authorship of its charter had nothing to do with
Manifestations of God, nor with God for that matter; and yet regardless the
fallibility of its authors, the charter of the Royal Society has succeeded
in devising the means by which schism is prevented. Once again, authority
and consensus have nothing to do with the capacity of this charter to
succeed where nearly every "Manifestation of God" has failed, as history
confirms.

My point is that while authorship is relevant to the crediting of one's
sources, it is by no means a measure of accuracy. This accuracy of content,
I believe, we must always investigate for ourselves, regardless the
authorship.


____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-21 05:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
PaulHammond
2008-09-21 16:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
It's a Shakespeare play, actually.

Or your behavior.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-22 02:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
It's a Shakespeare play, actually.
Nope. It's the bahaim writings.
Post by PaulHammond
Or your behavior.
If thast was the case, the British government qua Bahai administration
wouldn't mobilize an entire IT committee against me; or, to use your
words, _conspire_ internationally....

Palu wanna new script?

W
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-22 19:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
It's a Shakespeare play, actually.
Nope. It's the bahaim writings.
Nah! It's Shakespeare ... he wrote it first!
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by PaulHammond
Or your behavior.
If thast was the case, the British government qua Bahai administration
wouldn't mobilize an entire IT committee against me; or, to use your
words, _conspire_ internationally....
Ah! The Internet Committee .... not as good as four men and a dog barking
mad.

If they'd pay the fees,I'd work for them ... but they are such cheapskates.
They actually try to charge you for working for them ... bit like that old
vanity publishing ... and that fellow who was once around here and bilked
whatchayou mightcallhim of loadsa money to publish his book ... and never
did. Leastways that's how the story goes! I can't swear to its accuracy!
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Palu wanna new script?
Mimikins need a new brain!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-23 10:13:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 23, 5:43 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
It's a Shakespeare play, actually.
Nope. It's the bahaim writings.
Nah! It's Shakespeare ... he wrote it first!
Doesn't matter. In this case it is the bahaim writings. And if you are
not a bahaim, why, pray tell, does any of this matter to you or
remotely concern you?

And you said nothing about my allegation that there is no difference
between the Bahaim establishment and the British establishment.

W
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-23 22:40:29 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:10a0ee4a-6ad3-4737-9744-***@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 23, 5:43 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Much ado about nothing = bahaim writings
It's a Shakespeare play, actually.
Nope. It's the bahaim writings.
Nah! It's Shakespeare ... he wrote it first!
SP
Doesn't matter. In this case it is the bahaim writings.

MRL
Yes it does matter! That's Willie's phrase ... and you are plagiarising it
... and being feckin thick about it!
Go and devise something new and stop borrowing the good works of others.

SP
And if you are
not a bahaim, why, pray tell, does any of this matter to you or
remotely concern you?

MRL
I'm a member of POWFALM.

SP
And you said nothing about my allegation that there is no difference
between the Bahaim establishment and the British establishment.

MRL
Yes I did! So there!

But in any case why should a t'ick Mick give a rat's fart about the British
establishment?

Trust me on this ... its association, real or imaginary, with the Bahooeys
doesn't rank on the list of reasons why I detest the British establishment.
You'll have to join the queue ...


W
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-24 00:58:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 24, 8:40 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
But in any case why should a t'ick Mick give a rat's fart about the British
establishment?
The question is, why should *you* give a rat's ass. You give a rat's
ass because you work for them.
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
Trust me on this ... its association, real or imaginary, with the Bahooeys
doesn't rank on the list of reasons why I detest the British establishment.
This statement contradicts your statement above, just like your
protesting that your Asparagus identity was not Dermod Ryder and that
I would never discover your identity as Asparagus, which I did. You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.

W
PaulHammond
2008-09-24 23:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
On Sep 24, 8:40 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
But in any case why should a t'ick Mick give a rat's fart about the British
establishment?
The question is, why should *you* give a rat's ass. You give a rat's
ass because you work for them.
Yeah - when Dermod calls himself a "t'ick Mick" he is in fact
referring to himself. Hence, answering your question. (with a
question, admittedly - but the answer is implied!)
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
Trust me on this ... its association, real or imaginary, with the Bahooeys
doesn't rank on the list of reasons why I detest the British establishment.
This statement contradicts your statement above,
No it doesn't.
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
just like your
protesting that your Asparagus identity was not Dermod Ryder and that
I would never discover your identity as Asparagus, which I did.
Ground control to Major Tom!

When someone reads you the answer off the card because you ran out of
time, that DOESN'T count as getting the question right!
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow! When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government? Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-25 02:07:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
This statement contradicts your statement above,
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.

Paul Hammond on Fred Glaysher:
Yeah! We killed him, and buried him in a shallow grave!
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/76cee42d1b7a2676/429d3599e8e0e5c4#429d3599e8e0e5c4

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
PaulHammond
2008-09-26 22:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
This statement contradicts your statement above,
No it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
No. It doesn't.

Maybe learn to read, and then learn to reason before you try talking
with the adults?
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-27 09:41:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Maybe learn to read, and then learn to reason before you try talking
with the adults?
Good advice you should be taking for yourself, limey ponce.

W
Viv
2008-09-25 10:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow!  When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government?  Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Maybe what Nima is trying to say is that there is a deep bond of
similarity between the Irish and the Iranians, so deep he gets
confused as to which is which.

V.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-25 10:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow! When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government? Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Maybe what Nima is trying to say is that there is a deep bond of
similarity between the Irish and the Iranians, so deep he gets
confused as to which is which.
Indeed, the *real* Irish and the real Iranians. Of course Dermod is
not a real Mick, but just another sellout in a long list of sellouts.
That aside, what do you have to say about Nakhjavani's slip up
regarding the Will and Testament of Shoghi Effendi, eh palu?

W
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-29 00:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
Post by Viv
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow! When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government? Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Maybe what Nima is trying to say is that there is a deep bond of
similarity between the Irish and the Iranians, so deep he gets
confused as to which is which.
Indeed, the *real* Irish and the real Iranians. Of course Dermod is
not a real Mick, but just another sellout in a long list of sellouts.
The real Irish live in Ireland and the real Iranians, like Mimikins, live in
Queensland, Australia and carry Australian passports.

And, of course, Mimikins has never sold out ... though, allegedly, he has
been sold out, many times. Just goes to show how gullible he is!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-29 01:44:20 UTC
Permalink
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-29 11:34:48 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:047f2328-0533-4d64-aad5-***@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-30 02:08:50 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to. But while we're on the topic, the selling out has been all
yours, as confessed by yourself (so there is nothing really more to
add), since I have been an Azali-Sufi plot all along to eviscerate
your evil masters from the face of the earth:

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4

"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-30 21:22:54 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b580fb09-6017-4ff2-847d-***@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
SP
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.

MRL
It was implied ... so no wonder you didn't spot it.

SP
But while we're on the topic, the selling out has been all
yours, as confessed by yourself (so there is nothing really more to
add), since I have been an Azali-Sufi plot all along to eviscerate
your evil masters from the face of the earth:

MRL
You labour under a misunderstanding that I owe fealty and allegiance to the
Grumpies.

Fire on ahead if you want to destroy them ... I'll not be standing in your
way.

You'll understand that I really don't expect you to destroy them - you
haven't got what it takes - but carry on regardless of my views on the
matter. I'm sure we're all agog to see how you carry through your
battleplan to their eventual destruction. One wee word of advice on two
matters - one does not give terms for an "unconditional surrender". As the
term suggests it's a surrender WITHOUT terms or conditions. And the second
wee matter is that one really cannot demand a surrender of any kind unless
or until the enemy is on his knees. Now if I'm anything to go by ... your
enemy ain't on his knees ... none of them. So let's see a bit more action
and a lot less yammering from you. Cry havoc and all that follows!

And don't mind me ... I'll just be standing on the sidelines taking the piss
out of anything that strikes my fancy as a worthy candidate for having the
piss taken out of it.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-10-01 02:09:24 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4

"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Finnegan's Wake
2008-10-01 20:02:11 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f0607022-23b7-4e3d-a503-***@t65g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

So this is your response ... the mother of all weapons with which you will
destroy the Grumpies ... somebody else's documentary, a piss-taking
quotation from Asparagus and your own paranoid ramblings.

Small wonder the Grumpies are quaking in the Fuhrerbunker ... from laughter!
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
PaulHammond
2008-09-30 22:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.
But, you decided to respond with a blank post anyway?
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
add), since I have been an Azali-Sufi plot all along to eviscerate
So, YOU'RE just an id created by the Azali-Sufi internet committee all
along?

Or is it just that you'd love to be Machiavellian, but you haven't got
the brains necessary to blow your nose into a hankie, let alone bring
down any government!
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-10-01 02:10:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.
But, you decided to respond with a blank post anyway?
You mean like your pathetic uncharacteristic non-response here:
http://groups.google.com.au/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/e92ed42f8c2ebb78

You spend quite a bit of time here commenting upon the falling outs
people have had amongst each other, yet have failed to mention the
rumor that you and Karen Bacquet had a HUGE falling out some years
ago, and that Karen apparently does not speak to you anymore. Is this
true?

W
PaulHammond
2008-10-01 23:13:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "M�irse�il R� Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.
But, you decided to respond with a blank post anyway?
I'm sure everyone is capable of spotting the difference between
ignoring someone and posting a reply which contains nothing but tired
old spam!
%^%$##$@!
2008-10-04 09:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by PaulHammond
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "M?irse?il R? Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.
But, you decided to respond with a blank post anyway?
I'm sure everyone is capable of spotting the difference between
ignoring someone and posting a reply which contains nothing but tired
old spam!
And I am sure, no one is as guilty of hypocrisy here as much as you are.
This is a legitimate question. You constantly yap on regarding people's
falling-outs, but have yet to say a word that you, the High Priest of
Karenism, was disowned by Karen herself. What other people spot is
irrelevant here. Methinks I hit a bullseye - deep.

W
PaulHammond
2008-10-06 21:40:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by %^%$##$@!
Post by PaulHammond
On Sep 29, 9:34 pm, "M?irse?il R? Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
I purely love it when I leave you stuck for an answer.
And what was your question again, eh AO hack? There was nothing to
respond to.
But, you decided to respond with a blank post anyway?
You mean like your pathetic uncharacteristic non-response here: (this line added by Nima)
I'm sure everyone is capable of spotting the difference between
ignoring someone and posting a reply which contains nothing but tired
old spam!
And I am sure, no one is as guilty of hypocrisy here as much as you are.
This is a legitimate question.
No, it isn't.
Post by %^%$##$@!
You constantly yap on regarding people's
falling-outs,
Not "people's". Yours.

The fact that you always, without fail, fall out with your new friends
is significant.

Also the fact that you always, without fail, regardless of how
ridiculous the accusation may be, call people "Paid AO Hacks" when you
have fallen out with them.
Post by %^%$##$@!
but have yet to say a word that you, the High Priest of
Karenism, was disowned by Karen herself.
Are you sure of your information?
Post by %^%$##$@!
What other people spot is
irrelevant here.
Not hardly. You are trying to push a parallelism between you posting
a blank post with added spam when Dermod stumps you with you talking
to yourself about a subject which I'm not interested dignifying with a
response.

I'm just crediting the average reader with the ability to spot the
massive difference!
Post by %^%$##$@!
Methinks I hit a bullseye -
Nope. You missed the board entire.
PaulHammond
2008-09-26 22:34:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Viv
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow!  When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government?  Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Maybe what Nima is trying to say is that there is a deep bond of
similarity between the Irish and the Iranians, so deep he gets
confused as to which is which.
V.
Probably just a typo, or a brainfart.

But Nima's not about to admit to ever making a mistake, is he?
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-27 09:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Viv
Post by PaulHammond
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
You're
the typical kind of post-IRI era fenian which the British
establishment easily coopts.
Wow! When was the IRI ever in charge of the Irish government? Was it
"Khomeini's special flying squad" going over there or summat?
Maybe what Nima is trying to say is that there is a deep bond of
similarity between the Irish and the Iranians, so deep he gets
confused as to which is which.
V.
Probably just a typo, or a brainfart.
But Nima's not about to admit to ever making a mistake, is he?
When you finally admit your transparent affiliations with the Haifan
Bahaim establishment, only then are you in any moral position to be
criticizing anyone else's failings, o ye grande hypocrite/munafiq.

W
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-29 00:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
just like your
protesting that your Asparagus identity was not Dermod Ryder and that
I would never discover your identity as Asparagus, which I did.
PH
Ground control to Major Tom!

When someone reads you the answer off the card because you ran out of
time, that DOESN'T count as getting the question right!

MRL
He found out who Asparagus was when Asparagus disclosed who he was.

Up until then he was convinced Asparagus was a committee of folks in
Scotland.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-09-30 02:23:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 29, 10:01 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
MRL
He found out who Asparagus was when Asparagus disclosed who he was.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/b836c4363b835b62/d1cde77d9c2a1ed5?lnk=gst&q=Dead+Weed+%2B+Asparagus#d1cde77d9c2a1ed5

You sound like a typical bahaim, falsifying history etc. Steve and I
knew who you were from the moment you started posting under that
transparent alias. Here is January 2007 when Steve is outright calling
you "Dead Weed." I was the one who first started calling you Dead
Weed, jerk-off. We knew who you were right at the beginning,
especially since your penchant for deceit was etched all the way from
the beginning you stepped out in cyberspace. Do you recall Francis
Dingle?

W
Máirseáil Rí Laoise
2008-09-30 21:12:14 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9044b302-2060-432c-98d0-***@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 10:01 am, "Máirseáil Rí Laoise"
Post by Máirseáil Rí Laoise
MRL
He found out who Asparagus was when Asparagus disclosed who he was.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/alt.religion.bahai/browse_thread/thread/b836c4363b835b62/d1cde77d9c2a1ed5?lnk=gst&q=Dead+Weed+%2B+Asparagus#d1cde77d9c2a1ed5

SP
You sound like a typical bahaim, falsifying history etc. Steve and I
knew who you were from the moment you started posting under that
transparent alias. Here is January 2007 when Steve is outright calling
you "Dead Weed." I was the one who first started calling you Dead
Weed, jerk-off. We knew who you were right at the beginning,
especially since your penchant for deceit was etched all the way from
the beginning you stepped out in cyberspace.

MRL
Of course you knew all along. That's why you claimed the credit for sending
Asparagus to take his groundsweat!

SP
Do you recall Francis
Dingle?

MRL
My dear cousin! The rascal!

Do you remember a certain person around here who reported a prominent member
of the AO supporters squad for "covenantly challenging" behaviour, to the
Grumpies? Ah! Happy Days! There are still a few fools around TRB ... the
wiser ones, unlike you, know not to tangle with the GLI.
Sock-Puppet'ullah
2008-10-01 02:09:16 UTC
Permalink
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4

"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."

See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU

BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques

"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS

1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
Finnegan's Wake
2008-10-01 20:04:00 UTC
Permalink
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b3fc0ce1-4691-4a7a-9787-***@25g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...

Progress at last!

You have wisely decided not to respond directly to the GLI but to resort to
spamalot.
Post by Sock-Puppet'ullah
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/browse_thread/
thread/bd7e852c70316c9/d146728618637ab4?
lnk=st&q=Guardian&rnum=3#d146728618637ab4
"The Beloved Guardian assured us that those diseased people who
attacked the Cause of God would deservedly suffer and be destroyed
and behold, this vicious one was struck down exactly as you will be
destroyed for your wanton and outrageous lies and calumnies."
See *Bahais In My Backyard*
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2877478116441126906&hl=en-AU
BAHAIM Tactics & Techniques
"Slanderous Vilification" = The Baha'i Technique - Ad Hominem, Libel,
Slander, Demonize, Scapegoat, Ostracize, Shun, Banish, Backbite,
Defame, Vilify, Discredit, Smear, Revile, Suppress, Attack, Bully,
Intimidate, Threaten, Malign, Blackball, Deceive, Coerce, Silence,
Harass... etc., etc.... CAUTION NON-BAHAIS
1. As far as possible they hold back from responding
2. Then they claim no knowledge [of the given issue] by feigning
ignorance
3. After the exposer has exposed they will try to divert to secondary
and totally peripheral and irrelevent side-issues
4. The exposer is then painted as someone with an axe to grind,
biased, deluded (while they, the bahaim, still have not responded to
the main issue exposed)
5. Next they relate mental instability and insanity to the exposer
[i.e. shoot the messenger]
6. Then, the last tactic, is to wheel out several dubious personas on
the scene who claim to be neutral non-bahai observers who then begin
attacking the exposer as well as the issue exposed and supporting the
bahais and their issues as so-called non-bahais
compx2
2008-09-21 11:57:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi again, Tim.

"My point is that while authorship is relevant to the crediting of
one's sources, it is by no means a measure of accuracy. This accuracy
of content, I believe, we must always investigate for ourselves,
regardless the authorship."

You can't know the heat I took for not going even as far as you did on
this. It seems to me the question of authorship, when a religionists
regards the author as "infallible" is central to the question of
accuracy. Sure, if you remove the idea of "infallibility" from the
equation accuracy becomes verifiable individually. But those of us
who have taken a pledge to investigate individually and follow
teachings that include infallibility are forced to face this issue
when someone says "but those are pilgrims' notes".

Authorship is the measure of accuracy in this context, at least by a
large faction of Baha'is, which includes me, btw. Whether or not it
"should be" is not something you would want to debate around here
unless you have an unusually strong stomach.

But the gist of my argument is that the translated talks in several
books attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha accurately portray His thoughts and
ideas regardless whether or not we can authenticate those ideas with
Persian text which He read and approved. However, if some point is
being disputed from an un-authenticated text more sources should be
consulted. But without any reason, no contradictory teaching or idea,
no glaring mistakes or misuse of period words or phrases, these books
should be accepted as generally accurate.

Thanks for reading, and should you need support against the multitudes
with your controversial opinions I am here to bolster your right to
investigate for yourself, and live with wherever your investigation
leads you.

--Kent


On Sep 20, 3:32 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
"Baha'i writings" as such is an informal, if not colloquial term that, in my
experience, has no consistent definition and the diversity of opinion as to
what constitutes a "Baha'i Writing" lends support to this perception. In
standard English (after Ogden), a term such as "Baha'i writings" could ev
en
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
be taken to include anything and everything written by any Baha'i at any
time in any standing. May I add that the "acquired infallibility", as it
applies by binary elimination to Exemplar, Guardian and UHJ alike does no
t
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
include the authority to redefine existing terms of language (I've a more
detailed discussion of the implication of the two types of infallibilitie
s
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
at:http://fieldcraft.eu/topics/bahai/institutional-infallibility-in-the-.
...).
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
"Baha'i Literature", encompassing everything concerning the Baha'i Faith;
"Baha'i Scripture", being the only the material attributed to Baha'u'llah
"Baha'i Canon", being explicitly subject to definition by the UHJ
Grouping literature by `Abdu'l-Baha and Baha'u'llah is also problematic
owing to the fact that `Abdu'l-Baha, not being a "Manifestation of God" h
as
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
only "acquired infallibility" - which grouping is most adequately
represented by the combined authorship of `Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi, a
nd
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
the Universal House of Justice. Perhaps the literature of such a group co
uld
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
be described as, "Baha'i Encyclicals". In spite of the obvious
extra-Catholic analogue, the use of this term would still require
declaration and definition sufficient to the scope of usage due to the la
ck
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
of recognition for the term in a Baha'i context.
I'd also add that arguments about the authority or acceptance of literatu
re
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
(including that with respect to Baha'i interests), completely lack any
relevance to the accuracy or truthfulness of statements within that
literature. It doesn't matter if the author is God Herself, overlapping
magisteria of multiple maxims constitutes an irresolvable error, which
cannot but contradict "essential infallibility". The founding of the Roya
l
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Society and the authorship of its charter had nothing to do with
Manifestations of God, nor with God for that matter; and yet regardless t
he
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
fallibility of its authors, the charter of the Royal Society has succeede
d
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
in devising the means by which schism is prevented. Once again, authority
and consensus have nothing to do with the capacity of this charter to
succeed where nearly every "Manifestation of God" has failed, as history
confirms.
My point is that while authorship is relevant to the crediting of one's
sources, it is by no means a measure of accuracy. This accuracy of conten
t,
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
I believe, we must always investigate for ourselves, regardless the
authorship.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-09-23 11:30:38 UTC
Permalink
"compx2" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
[SNIP]

Hai Kent,

Thank you. I believe I can imagine that heat. I've weathered a few storms of
my own, and people aren't pretty when they are more interested in conformity
than truthfulness. I think the whole issue of infallibility has some real
problems. I regard the very idea of infallibility with deep suspicion
because its function is to avoid accountability and more importantly
infallibility is a means by which such fraudulent practices as the
censorship of evidence may be justified. It is a fact that credibility of
authorship does not guarantee accuracy. I can give many examples of howlers
published by eminent doctors and professors. They are human, but as Christ
pointed out (in very different words), problems of merchantability are bound
to emerge when one exaggerates one's reliability; especially when God or
Goddess gets dragged into it. Once again, author credibility, like its
opposite number the ad hominem attack, is an intellectual sleight of hand
designed to draw attention away from the evidence (or lack thereof). This
intellectual sleight of hand makes claims to infallibility, however well
justified, highly deceptive in nature. For this reason I now blindly reject
all infallibility and argument by infallibility as an attempt to evade
discussion of evidence.


____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
j***@gmail.com
2008-09-23 16:23:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sep 23, 4:30 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
Hai Kent,
Thank you. I believe I can imagine that heat. I've weathered a few storms of
my own, and people aren't pretty when they are more interested in conformity
than truthfulness. I think the whole issue of infallibility has some real
problems. I regard the very idea of infallibility with deep suspicion
because its function is to avoid accountability and more importantly
infallibility is a means by which such fraudulent practices as the
censorship of evidence may be justified. It is a fact that credibility of
authorship does not guarantee accuracy. I can give many examples of howlers
published by eminent doctors and professors. They are human, but as Christ
pointed out (in very different words), problems of merchantability are bound
to emerge when one exaggerates one's reliability; especially when God or
Goddess gets dragged into it. Once again, author credibility, like its
opposite number the ad hominem attack, is an intellectual sleight of hand
designed to draw attention away from the evidence (or lack thereof). This
intellectual sleight of hand makes claims to infallibility, however well
justified, highly deceptive in nature. For this reason I now blindly reject
all infallibility and argument by infallibility as an attempt to evade
discussion of evidence.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
compx2
2008-09-26 22:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Hi again, Tim.

I am having great difficulty posting here, having tried to post this
one several times as well as others.

The issue of infallibility has been discussed around here several
times in my years reading this forum. I suggest that if you want to
seriously discuss the issue further we should start a new thread.

But as a Baha'i I have an obligation to understand the usage of the
word in relation to the institutions of the Faith and the Central
Figures. I have reconciled it myself with an understanding of the
purpose of God's revelation, that God works in broad strokes. In Her
revelation She has provided a matrix of understanding, the elimination
of prejudice, spiritual solution to economic problems, progressive
revelation from God, independent investigation... All of Her
revelation cannot be empirically verified, but the promise that should
we adopt these principles and follow Her proscriptions we will become
better people and attract Her confirmations.
I believe this is a major covenant between God and humanity, a major
connection that can only benefit humanity, and each of us personally.

That is infallible.
Post by compx2
--Kent
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
[SNIP]
Hai Kent,
Thank you. I believe I can imagine that heat. I've weathered a few
storms
Post by compx2
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
of
my own, and people aren't pretty when they are more interested in conformity
than truthfulness. I think the whole issue of infallibility has some real
problems. I regard the very idea of infallibility with deep suspicion
because its function is to avoid accountability and more importantly
infallibility is a means by which such fraudulent practices as the
censorship of evidence may be justified. It is a fact that credibility of
authorship does not guarantee accuracy. I can give many examples of howlers
published by eminent doctors and professors. They are human, but as Christ
pointed out (in very different words), problems of merchantability are bound
to emerge when one exaggerates one's reliability; especially when God or
Goddess gets dragged into it. Once again, author credibility, like its
opposite number the ad hominem attack, is an intellectual sleight of hand
designed to draw attention away from the evidence (or lack thereof). This
intellectual sleight of hand makes claims to infallibility, however well
justified, highly deceptive in nature. For this reason I now blindly reject
all infallibility and argument by infallibility as an attempt to evade
discussion of evidence.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-10-06 01:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by compx2
Hi again, Tim.
I am having great difficulty posting here, having tried to post this
one several times as well as others.
The issue of infallibility has been discussed around here several
times in my years reading this forum. I suggest that if you want to
seriously discuss the issue further we should start a new thread.
But as a Baha'i I have an obligation to understand the usage of the
word in relation to the institutions of the Faith and the Central
Figures. I have reconciled it myself with an understanding of the
purpose of God's revelation, that God works in broad strokes. In Her
revelation She has provided a matrix of understanding, the elimination
of prejudice, spiritual solution to economic problems, progressive
revelation from God, independent investigation... All of Her
revelation cannot be empirically verified, but the promise that should
we adopt these principles and follow Her proscriptions we will become
better people and attract Her confirmations.
I believe this is a major covenant between God and humanity, a major
connection that can only benefit humanity, and each of us personally.
That is infallible.
Post by compx2
--Kent
[SNIP]

I think that's beautiful Kent. Although my experience leads me to somewhat
different beliefs, I have always agreed with the major principles of the
Baha'i Faith - such as those you have mentioned.

However, I am particularly cautious of arbitrary proscription because every
human being already knows how to correctly derive a just proscription. We
can all put ourselves in the shoes of others an empathise with them, and we
all know how to find out which expectations are universal and which are the
product of culture or temperament. I think that the key here is good will,
consultation, and due diligence. Very simple compared to a code of laws -
even if it is intended only for consumption as "a choice wine".

We also have a rich enough culture to know how to prevent schism - As far as
I can tell, the Royal Society was the first to achieve this by abolishing
the role of doctrinal authority and rejecting concepts such as
infallibility.


____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
compx2
2008-10-06 11:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Hi Timothy.

You say it is beautiful, and in my opinion it is. But part of its
beauty is its reasonable nature, its inherent truth.

"...cautious of arbitrary proscription"

Me too. Why do you bring that up?
...rejecting concepts such as
infallibility.
I thought we just went through this. Where was the problem?

--Kent


On Oct 5, 9:18 pm, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
Post by compx2
Hi again, Tim.
I am having great difficulty posting here, having tried to post this
one several times as well as others.
The issue of infallibility has been discussed around here several
times in my years reading this forum.  I suggest that if you want to
seriously discuss the issue further we should start a new thread.
But as a Baha'i I have an obligation to understand the usage of the
word in relation to the institutions of the Faith and the Central
Figures.  I have reconciled it myself with an understanding of the
purpose of God's revelation, that God works in broad strokes.  In Her
revelation She has provided a matrix of understanding, the elimination
of prejudice, spiritual solution to economic problems, progressive
revelation from God, independent investigation...  All of Her
revelation cannot be empirically verified, but the promise that should
we adopt these principles and follow Her proscriptions we will become
better people and attract Her confirmations.
I believe this is a major covenant between God and humanity, a major
connection that can only benefit humanity, and each of us personally.
That is infallible.
Post by compx2
--Kent
[SNIP]
I think that's beautiful Kent. Although my experience leads me to somewha
t
different beliefs, I have always agreed with the major principles of the
Baha'i Faith - such as those you have mentioned.
However, I am particularly because every
human being already knows how to correctly derive a just proscription. We
can all put ourselves in the shoes of others an empathise with them, and we
all know how to find out which expectations are universal and which are t
he
product of culture or temperament. I think that the key here is good will
,
consultation, and due diligence. Very simple compared to a code of laws -
even if it is intended only for consumption as "a choice wine".
We also have a rich enough culture to know how to prevent schism - As far as
I can tell, the Royal Society was the first to achieve this by abolishing
the role of doctrinal authority and rejecting concepts such as
infallibility.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical Essays:http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading:http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software:http://fieldcraft.biz;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design:http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. Seewww.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-10-13 05:06:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi Tim and Kent-
Hi Doug and Kent
I am wondering about something.
My understanding from the Writings and from what I have read from
those scholars who have fluency in the original source languages say
that the Manifestation has essential infallibility and He has
conferred infallibility upon the Master who in turn conferred
infallibility upon the Guardian and House of Justice. The Beloved
Master gave us some knowledge about all this in several places. He
explained essential infallibility and how certain holy souls are
capable of acquiring this condition of conferred infallibility and are
not subject to error. The argument you mention that has happened on
discussions appeared to be about how the Master, Guardian and House of
Justice are not inerrant but that the original word for infallibility
actually meant "protection" or "sinlessness" I think.
Then why not translate it as sinless, protected, or otherwise.
Why use infallible if infallible is not intended?

The thing that I find most obnoxious about psychology literature is the
tendency to arbitrarily redefine words from the English language when
existing vocabulary can be used more effectively.
What I would like to know is what is the original word for "essential"
and what is the original word for "infallibility".
I'm somewhat confused by all this and also wondered about how English
is translated back into the original sources languages. For example
how is the word infallible in relation to the Master, Guardian and
House of Justice translated back into Arabic or Persian?
If it does not correctly tranlslate back to the Arabic or Persian for
"infallible" then I think that the translation was wrong to begin with.
It strikes me strange that we can attribute total essential
infallibility to the Manifestation who is without error and then when
He appoints the Master and confers infallibility upon him that some
will attribute an error to the Master or the Guardian. To me that
would mean the Manifestation (God speaking to us) made an error in
conferring infallibility upon the Master,etc.
Exactly. A contradiction of conferred infallibility refutes the essential
infallibility of the source by which the conferred infallibility was
conferred in the first place.
We are fallible and we then judge the Central Figures and that does
not seem to me to be reasonable nor spiritual.
May I point out that seeking closure is only described by the use of the
term, "judging" in the context of Myer-Briggs Type Index. Elsewhere, the
term is much more specific. With this in mind, is judging the logic of the
central figures really judging the central figures themselves?

I believe that it is up to the central figures to prove themselves; whereby
their logic, their philosophical integrity, and their factual accuracy are
subject to intense scrutiny. I would also add accountability to that list -
but I suspect that accountability is not compatible with infallibility.
Also Kent, where in the Writings, either in the source language or in
any other language is the Manifestation referred to as "She"? I know
that God is genderless but yet if the Manifestation said "He" then who
are we to change it?
[SNIP]

Did the manifestation apply the masculine gender to God?
Or did Effendi simply apply the default gender used in English?

This is a question of language that goes beyond default genders and the
differences in Persian and English in that what universally defines the male
gender is the inability to create or conceive life. For example, the correct
gender for organisms that reproduce asexually is female. Therefore I would
expect the correct gender for the Creator of life is female, as a matter of
definition and out of recognition of the role of Creator.

That the profound paradox inherent in the metaphor of a solitary male
Creator is not specifically addressed by any of His messengers (with the
possible exception of Hermes/Mercury/Idris/Enoch - see Libellvs I:12)
suggests that the masculinity of God is asserted in ignorance of its
implications. The paradox or koan, exists in a state of non-existence that
is only possible in the cognitively dissonant imagination of a sentient
being. In other words, if God simultaneously exists and does not exist, as
inferred from the assertion of Divine masculinity, this speaks to
localisation and dependency for the simplest explanation. The term, "idol"
comes to mind.

If I remember correctly, the original gender of God was female, and it was
changed, illogically in my view, just after the flooding of the Black Sea
about 7500 years ago. However, given that what ultimately separates the
masculine from the feminine is the ability to create or conceive life, then
the correct pronoun for God would have to be in the feminine, unless God is
attributed with a partner who bore life on His behalf... ...adding all
sorts of new spice to those "immaculate conception" and "virgin birth"
metaphors so popular in some cultures and also adding many more implications
about who exactly were engaging in idolatry and who were not.



____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-10-16 03:09:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
It strikes me strange that we can attribute total essential
infallibility to the Manifestation who is without error and then when
He appoints the Master and confers infallibility upon him that some
will attribute an error to the Master or the Guardian. To me that
would mean the Manifestation (God speaking to us) made an error in
conferring infallibility upon the Master,etc.
Exactly. A contradiction of conferred infallibility refutes the essential
infallibility of the source by which the conferred infallibility was
conferred in the first place.
Seems reasonable to me.
Dear Tim-
I recently sent you a reply concerning your response on my comment and
did so in error. I thought you were agreeing with me and on second
glance see that you were not.
To me the Manifestation with essential infallibility cannot make an
error in appointing and conferring infallibility on another who could
make an error. We are not infallible and thus we cannot evaluate an
infallible souls behavior or actions as being in error. I have not
seen any evidence produced by any scholar to warrant a conclusion the
Central Figures made an error.
Yes, but how can we accept essential infallibility unless it can be proven
in the first place? The problem is that it doesn't matter how many times we
prove essential infallibility, it only takes a single disproof to falsify
it. This is why independent investigation of truth is a never ending saga.
For me, the non-singularity (IE. absence or multiplicity) of maxim in a
canon is sufficient to refute the infallibility of it's author. The
multiplicity of most important propositions is the most common error in
administrative logic.


____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
2008-10-19 03:10:20 UTC
Permalink
"Douglas McAdam" <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
[SNIP]
Hi Tim-
My understanding is that all that has been revealed by Baha'u'llah can
be validated but it may take some time for us to become developed
enough to do so. I do know there are some things I do not understand,
things they appear to be paradoxes or even contradictions but I take
it that I am not yet developed enough to understand their unity. I
have had similar experiences in the past and later I found validation
because I became more deepened and saw a larger context.
It is the responsibility of the author to make his/her point clear to the
reader and not vice versa. It is not up to the reader to resolve
Baha'u'llah's literary failings any more than it was up to Hutton's readers
to reassemble his logic in an order they could understand. This is why Lyell
reaped the benefits of Hutton's ideas - ultimately because Lyell took
responsibility for his own literary clarity and proceeded to rewrite
Hutton's ideas after a style that people could more readily understand. How
is it that an infallible "Manifestation of God" cannot do this when meagre
mortals such as Lyell, Wegener, and Einstein; with vastly more complex ideas
such as actualism, continental drift, and special relativity; express them
directly and clearly?
Independent Investigation of Truth to me means we must not allow our
conditioning, our former beliefs etc. to sway our investigation of the
Manifestation. Once we have accepted the Manifestation we then
independently investigate His Revelation but by not just reading His
Writings but actually living by them. Who among us does not have
human faults and character deficiencies that interfere with our
rational powers of investigation? Not me for sure.
True, and true of science - yet who is to say that the conflict of
Kitab-i-Aqdas Section 1 and the Ninth Ishraq is

1.) the reader's misunderstanding?
2.) an illusion of poor writing skills?
3.) a product of the author's multiplicity, insanity, or evolution?

What cannot be measured cannot be investigated, and the promotion of
independent investigation of truth is a deception in absence of means by
which to investigate - especially if the outcome of the investigation as
opposed to the investigation itself is dictated by the first duty of the
philosophy under investigation!



____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the ***@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today!
Susan
2008-10-27 00:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
It is the responsibility of the author to make his/her point clear to the
reader and not vice versa.
Dear Tim,

You are forgetting that Baha'u'llah's immediate audience was people
who spoke Persian and Arabic and were already quite familiar with
Baha'u'llah's vocabulary.

How
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
is it that an infallible "Manifestation of God" cannot do this when meagre
mortals such as Lyell, Wegener, and Einstein; with vastly more complex ideas
such as actualism, continental drift, and special relativity; express them
directly and clearly?
Just because you can't understand them does not make them
unintelligible. Not everyone understood what Jesus said either.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
True, and true of science - yet who is to say that the conflict of
Kitab-i-Aqdas Section 1 and the Ninth Ishraq is
1.) the reader's misunderstanding?
2.) an illusion of poor writing skills?
3.) a product of the author's multiplicity, insanity, or evolution?
What conflict are you talking about?
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
What cannot be measured cannot be investigated, and the promotion of
independent investigation of truth is a deception in absence of means by
which to investigate - especially if the outcome of the investigation as
opposed to the investigation itself is dictated by the first duty of the
philosophy under investigation!
It can't be investigated by means of physical sciences. You need other
tools. Baha'u'llah describes those tools in the portion of the Kitab-i
Iqan we frequently call the Tablet of the True Seeker.

warmest, Susan
Susan
2008-10-27 00:19:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Then why not translate it as sinless, protected, or otherwise.
Why use infallible if infallible is not intended?
That is one of the meanings of infallibility.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
The thing that I find most obnoxious about psychology literature is the
tendency to arbitrarily redefine words from the English language when
existing vocabulary can be used more effectively.
I'm don't think 'protected' would convey the meaning any better.
Neither would sinless unless we make it very clear what we mean by
sinless.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
If it does not correctly tranlslate back to the Arabic or Persian for
"infallible" then I think that the translation was wrong to begin with.
It translates back as an Arabic word, not an English one. :-)
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Also Kent, where in the Writings, either in the source language or in
any other language is the Manifestation referred to as "She"?  
In Persian personal pronouns have no gender. So 'She' would be as
accurate a translation as 'He.' The same is not true for Arabic in
which the personal pronoun referring to God is always "He."
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Did the manifestation apply the masculine gender to God?
He did when He was writing in Arabic.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Or did Effendi simply apply the default gender used in English?
You were a Baha'i once weren't you? Why are you referring to the
Guardian as Effendi? Effendi means "Mr."
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
This is a question of language that goes beyond default genders and the
differences in Persian and English in that what universally defines the m
ale
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
gender is the inability to create or conceive life. For example, the corr
ect
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
gender for organisms that reproduce asexually is female. Therefore I woul
d
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
expect the correct gender for the Creator of life is female, as a matter of
definition and out of recognition of the role of Creator.
Only if we are talking about natural processes. This is precisely the
reason that monotheistic religions have typically conceived of God as
male rather than female. He was supposed to transcend nature rather
than be imminent in it. It all goes back to the conception of Mother
Earth and Father Sky. Hopefully we are beginning to move away from
that and I think Baha'u'llah's conception of the Divine Huri (Heavenly
Maiden) is a step in that direction. But I suspect it will not be
complete until we have a female Manifestation.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
If I remember correctly, the original gender of God was female, and it wa
s
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
changed, illogically in my view, just after the flooding of the Black Sea
about 7500 years ago.
In polytheistic religions a mother goddess was frequently worshiped in
addition to gods. To my knowledge there has never been a monotheistic
religion which conceived of God as female.

warmest, Susan
PaulHammond
2008-10-28 23:46:53 UTC
Permalink
These are probably faintly off-topic responses to a couple of things I
noticed in this post.

On 27 Oct, 00:19, Susan <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Tim wrote:
" For example, the correct gender for organisms that reproduce
asexually is female. "

Why? I think, if this is so, it is simply a matter of convention - or
else an analogy with the fact that in larger animals new creatures
emerge from the bodies of the female creature, whether that be a live
birth or an egg.

For my money, for organisms that ONLY reproduce asexually the notion
of gender is entirely inappropriate.

Bacteria reproduce asexually (by fission) in the main, but AIUI, in
times of stress they can also perform a form of sexual reproduction.
I've seen the cell that donates genetic material, and the cell that
receives it referred to as "+" and "-" before - which I suppose is an
attempt to describe what's happening without confusing the issue by
thinking of these cells as "gendered" - I don't know for sure, but I
think that the same bacterial cell can be doners or receivers of
material at different times.
Post by Susan
Only if we are talking about natural processes. This is precisely the
reason that monotheistic religions have typically conceived of God as
male rather than female. He was supposed to transcend nature rather
than be imminent in it. It all goes back to the conception of Mother
Earth and Father Sky. Hopefully we are beginning to move away from
that and I think Baha'u'llah's conception of the Divine Huri (Heavenly
Maiden) is a step in that direction. But I suspect it will not be
complete until we have a female Manifestation.
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
If I remember correctly, the original gender of God was female, and it wa
s
Post by Number Eleven - GPEMC!
changed, illogically in my view, just after the flooding of the Black Sea
about 7500 years ago.
In polytheistic religions a mother goddess was frequently worshiped in
addition to gods. To my knowledge there has never been a monotheistic
religion which conceived of God as female.
What I have very commonly seen is an assertion that the large numbers
of little stone figures of apparently feminine form that date back to
either the neolithic or the mesolithic era are evidence that our
"original" religion was a form of goddess worship.

To me, that seems like a highly tendentious claim, motivated more by
notions of 60s feminism as a correction to patriarchal western culture
than a dispassionate evaluation of the archaelogical evidence.

Since these finds are prehistoric, by definition there are no written
sources to help us work out what the function of these figurines was,
so any suggestions of their purpose have some element of speculation.
It could be that these things were that culture's equivalent of Barbie
dolls rather than something that formed a part of their religion.

I think Susan is right, and that most likely these things were
representations of the same kind of mother goddesses or sex goddesses
as we find in ancient Greek culture represented by such figures as
Hera and Aphrodite (but who wants to identify with Hera, the eternal
nagging wife? lets prefer Gaia, from the earlier generations of
gods!)

Paul
Susan
2008-11-01 04:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by PaulHammond
What I have very commonly seen is an assertion that the large numbers
of little stone figures of apparently feminine form that date back to
either the neolithic or the mesolithic era are evidence that our
"original" religion was a form of goddess worship.
To me, that seems like a highly tendentious claim, motivated more by
notions of 60s feminism as a correction to patriarchal western culture
than a dispassionate evaluation of the archaelogical evidence.
Dear Paul,

Exactly. I should also point out that there are cultures today where
the Mother Goddess is the most prevalently worshiped diety, India for
instance. But there is no correspondence between worshiping a female
deity and a more positive evaluation of women in general.

warmest, Susan

Loading...