| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
 |
|
Hi Mark,
| Quote: | How is that related to the Baha'i Faith and ACIM?
|
It is logic. If something compatible is similar by virtue of logic, then
something else compatible with something else should be similar, by the same
virtue.
| Quote: | I never commented on whether it was or was not compatible.
|
Then I misunderstood you when you said "That implies similarity or, at
least, compatibility."
| Quote: | I can't respond to your
criticism of statements I neve made.
|
You never said ""That implies similarity or, at least, compatibility."?
| Quote: | When did I say it was "bad"?
|
You: "Like Susan, I do not find it to be particularly impressive."
"It reads, to me, like a Christian version of Hindu advaita (nondualist)
philosophy."
You did not say "bad" you said bad things about it. You dismissed it as not
impressive, which is not praise, and if you were to say that to me about my
dearly held beliefs I would be insulted.
| Quote: | Show me where I ever
said that I currently believe Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha taught
Neoplatonism.
|
I didn;t say that you did say that you didn't... Golly, this is confusing.
I would much rather talk about what you do believe than what you said.
Do you believe the Divine Word as used in the Baha'i Writings is roughly
equivalent to the NeoPlatonist concept of Logos? If so, can you please
find me an example of such (I quoted every single usage of the phrase
recently, so that should be easy).
| Quote: | Because Logos is generally translated as "Word."
|
I have asked you repeatedly why you are speaking Greek.
| Quote: | Can I investigate, too?
|
Can you do so without denegrating others?
| Quote: | That is another strange thing to say to another Baha'i.
|
The reason I am here is because I find so many Baha'is are such authorities
on what others should believe. I know what I believe, and if you find a
problem with it I am here for you to help me find the error of my ways. But
when I see such cultish, cliquish, dismissive, anti-community work being
done here, well, I wonder if it is possible for the Baha'is to let me
believe in the Baha'i Faith.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fqdncfhPMflU_vVnZ2dnUVZ_vednZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 6:40 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
Presumably you then think that the compatible is similar. Windows XP is
compatible with humanity, at least that portion of humanity with access
to
computers. But is Windows similar to humanity? A portion of humanity?
How is that related to the Baha'i Faith and ACIM?
So ACIM is *not* compatible with the Baha'i Faith?
I never commented on whether it was or was not compatible. I said that
I thought that "many of the basic assumptions" differ.
Why not? Your statements clearly state that you see a relationship
between
the similar and the compatible, and that ACIM is not similar to the
Baha'i Faith.
I think you should redirect your statements to make it clear that you
believe
ACIM is indeed compatible with the Baha'i Faith, at least as compatible
as other
outdated and proven deficient philosophies, like say Neo-Platonism.
Kent, you are arguing with a straw man. I can't respond to your
criticism of statements I neve made.
And many of your basic assumption *about the Baha'i Faith* differ from
those
I read in the Baha'i texts. To wit those concerning "Divine Word" in the
very recent history of this very thread. I hope we get to that, but I
think
I see some revision in your thinking. At least I hope so.
Neither of us is an authoritative interpreter, so we do not have the
the ability to make incontrovertible statements about the Baha'i
texts.
But the major point is that a Baha'i comes here with a personal,
spiritual,
inspiration and you and Susan can only pronounce how bad it is. You an I
both know that ACIM is similar to many philosophical and religious
movement
or doctrines of the past. And all of those paths have been peaceful,
tolerant of other peoples and thoughts, and has produced many admirable
individuals. How is that incompatible with the Baha'i Faith?
When did I say it was "bad"? I am an academic, a sociologist of
religion, and I believe in treating religious movements respectfully
and particularly. Disregarding differences, syncretism, making believe
that all religions are basically the same, etc. is the sort of
religious colonization, or triumphalism, which I unequivocally reject
as a scholar.
You remind me of friends I had in High School. "I am not racist, but
those
black people sure can dance, can't they?"
That is a highly inappropriate example, Kent. Show me where I ever
said that I currently believe Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha taught
Neoplatonism.
You and Susan have clearly said that the "Divine Word" is roughly
equivalent
to the "Logos" despite the fact that every use of the phrase "Divine
Word"
from the Baha'i Writings has been quoted here and none even approach the
usage of "Logos" in Neo-Platonic Christianity or Islam, which is where
you
got it.
Because Logos is generally translated as "Word."
The point you are clearly missing is that your interpretation of the
Baha'i
Writings is not correct, and neither is anyone else's. You need to
embrace
that fact, and encourage others to independently investigate truth for
themselves.
Can I investigate, too?
You should most definitely not proclaim that other spiritual paths might
not
be "similar" or "compatible" right out of the gate. Catherine is no
doubt a
wonderful person on a spiritual path, and when she comes to Baha'is she
finds bickering from people who write with authority about their
misconceptions of my religion.
Kent, no one has been bickering except for you.
My religion is not your religion, Mark, that is true. But we are both
Baha'is. And there is room here for Catherine as well. I want to
welcome
her, but I have to get past you before I can do that.
That is another strange thing to say to another Baha'i.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Do you think your words to Catherine were encouraging?
I have been the only moderator on the srb for several months now. When you
are willing to take a shift please let me know. You make it sound as though
I relish this work. I am only trying to keep the lines of communication
open.
And I have not rejected any posts in those months except those two of yours,
and with your permission I will post them. So attacking me on this point is
a non-issue. I disagree with the srb policy but do my best to comply.
Let me know if I can do anything else for you.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OfmdnfLsuP6zT_vVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | My religion is not your religion, Mark, that is true. But we are both
Baha'is. And there is room here for Catherine as well. I want to
welcome
her, but I have to get past you before I can do that.
You can't welcome Catherine except bu attacking us.
Right.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Do you think your words to Catherine were encouraging?
I have been the only moderator on the srb for several months now. When you
are willing to take a shift please let me know. You make it sound as though
I relish this work. I am only trying to keep the lines of communication
open.
And I have not rejected any posts in those months except those two of yours,
and with your permission I will post them. So attacking me on this point is
a non-issue. I disagree with the srb policy but do my best to comply.
Let me know if I can do anything else for you.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OfmdnfLsuP6zT_vVnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | My religion is not your religion, Mark, that is true. But we are both
Baha'is. And there is room here for Catherine as well. I want to
welcome
her, but I have to get past you before I can do that.
You can't welcome Catherine except bu attacking us.
Right.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
| Quote: | Do you think your words to Catherine were encouraging?
|
My words indicated she was free to make her own choice on that matter.
Your words showed how nasty Baha'is can be to one another.
| Quote: | And I have not rejected any posts in those months except those two of yours,
|
That does not excuse posting your own personal attacks. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:05 am Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Hi Mark,
You: "Because I am speaking of the Person of the Prophet as Revelator (the
Logos)."
How is that not Neo-Platonist?
| Quote: | How have I denegrated you?
|
Never, Mark, you have been very respectful. I was talking about Catherine.
| Quote: | ....we can see various discoursive
communities or, as I have called them, covenantally-grounded "Baha'i
faiths."
|
Glad to hear it. But we can never achieve such a community, such unity, if
we denigrate and dismiss the beliefs of other Baha'i faiths, of others of no
named faith or of non-Baha'i faiths. I propose we simply prefer our own
beliefs, which is as it should be, and share those beliefs when we find
hearing ears.
In the mean time, I propose we try to be hearing ears.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0dmdnTZ_EvT7f_vVnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 7:31 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
It is logic. If something compatible is similar by virtue of logic, then
something else compatible with something else should be similar, by the
same
virtue.
That is not like logic, or critical thinking, as I present it to my
Social Problems students. The subjects to be compared need to have a
similar relationship in both instances. Take a look at some questions
from the Miller Analogies Test.
Then I misunderstood you when you said "That implies similarity or, at
least, compatibility."
I said that the OP (original poster) had implied a compatibility
between ACIM and the Baha'i Faith. However, I never said whether I
agreed with the OP. My only comment was that, IMO, the basic
assumptions differed.
You never said ""That implies similarity or, at least, compatibility."?
I never addressed the issue of compatibility. I simply referred to it
in the OP's message. I have no idea as to whether ACIM and the Baha'i
Faith are compatible. I would need to know which points were being
compared.
You: "Like Susan, I do not find it to be particularly impressive."
"It reads, to me, like a Christian version of Hindu advaita (nondualist)
philosophy."
Because it does not appeal to me. That doesn't mean I see it as "bad."
I also don't like most team sports. However, I don't regard them as
being "bad" either.
You did not say "bad" you said bad things about it. You dismissed it as
not
impressive, which is not praise, and if you were to say that to me about
my
dearly held beliefs I would be insulted.
I never said one "bad" thing about it. In fact, I did not judge it at
all.
Do you believe the Divine Word as used in the Baha'i Writings is roughly
equivalent to the NeoPlatonist concept of Logos? If so, can you please
find me an example of such (I quoted every single usage of the phrase
recently, so that should be easy).
Not entirely, because the Neoplatonic concept rests on assumptions I
do not make. I see Neoplatonic and Aristotelian terms of reference
used, but I see them as language games (as Lyotard used the term).
I have asked you repeatedly why you are speaking Greek.
Because I am speaking of the Person of the Prophet as Revelator (the
Logos).
Can you do so without denegrating others?
How have I denegrated you?
The reason I am here is because I find so many Baha'is are such
authorities
on what others should believe. I know what I believe, and if you find a
problem with it I am here for you to help me find the error of my ways.
But
when I see such cultish, cliquish, dismissive, anti-community work being
done here, well, I wonder if it is possible for the Baha'is to let me
believe in the Baha'i Faith.
I have never said anything against people having their own
understandings of the Baha'i primary sources. In fact, I support, even
advocate, it. My own view is toward a post-liberal approach to the
late Rabbi Alvin J. Reines concept of "polydoxy." The term post-
liberal theologies refers, in part, to theologies which attempt to
move beyond purely individual readings of sacred texts to those which
are grounded in a community of discourse (a moral community). From
that standpoint, I have acknowledged that, within the Baha'i Faith,
under the Universal House of Justice, we can see various discoursive
communities or, as I have called them, covenantally-grounded "Baha'i
faiths." While Reines' idea of polydoxy was individual, mine is
collective.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Hi Mark,
I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth is not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that your
view?
It would be difficult to express my view in even a paragraph or two since
truth itself is a term that needs a bit of definition. If you are
interested we can talk about it in a "Relative Truth" thread, but in a
nutshell I believe conceptuality is relative.
Do you mean Blavatsky's _Key to Theosophy_? Where do I find her version of
Progressive Revelation?
| Quote: | There are no fixed ideal forms.
Everything, including the Will of God and its Personification in the
divine Logos (the God-Man or Prophet), is susceptible to alteration.
Prophetic Covenants are particular, not universal.
|
Those are some of the reasons I keep saying use of Neo-Platonic language in
reference to Baha'i ideas is wrong. These ideas, like the idea invoked by
the word "Logos" are not Baha'i ideas. Ascribing the language of
Neo-Platonism to Baha'i ideas is misleading and forcing wrong ideas into
Baha'i Writings.
So I ask again, why do you speak Greek here?
| Quote: | That is why the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the relativity of religious
truth - and the relativity of human understanding.
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say that is the sole reason why but common sense
is certainly one of the rasons. We would all do well to consult common
sense when deciding which beliefs' sets and philosophies we will call our
own.
--Kent
"Poststructuralist" <drfosternotfromgloucester@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:kOGdnZT-tYkN-_rVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 28, 9:05 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
How is that not Neo-Platonist?
H.P. Blavatsky's Theosophy is an example of Neoplatonism. According to
Blavatsky, God, truth, knowledge, etc. are fixed, eternal constants.
They do *not* change from age to age. God's will a million years ago
and God's will today are identical. What was revealed by each new
"avatar" is identical to what was revealed by the preceding ones.
There is no progressive Revelation. From a Theosophical (and
Neoplatonic) point of view, religious truth is *not* relative.
On the other hand, it is, to my understanding, the Baha'i concept of
the relativity of religious truth which, among other factors, makes
the Baha'i Faith *not* Neoplatonic. There are no fixed ideal forms.
Everything, including the Will of God and its Personification in the
divine Logos (the God-Man or Prophet), is susceptible to alteration.
Prophetic Covenants are particular, not universal.
Never, Mark, you have been very respectful. I was talking about
Catherine.
Oh, okay.
Glad to hear it. But we can never achieve such a community, such unity,
if
we denigrate and dismiss the beliefs of other Baha'i faiths, of others of
no
named faith or of non-Baha'i faiths. I propose we simply prefer our own
beliefs, which is as it should be, and share those beliefs when we find
hearing ears.
That is why the Baha'i Faith acknowledges the relativity of religious
truth - and the relativity of human understanding.
Mark Foster
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
drgoplayer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Jun 27, 8:20 am, mysticmind...@webtv.net (catherine monroe) wrote:
| Quote: | I am a member of the Bahai Faith and I have been since july of
2007. About two months ago I came across the book--A Course in
Miracles-- and they say its a spiritual path not a religion. Its main
theme is the world that we live in a dream that we made up ourselves
with the help of our ego(devil) and that we never left heaven.
I'ld like to think that A Course in Miracles picks up were the
Bahai faith left off.
My question is would it be ok for me to belive in both the Bahai
faith & A Course in Miracles? Can the two be mixed?
|
Hi Catherine,
In case you missed it in all sound and fury, the Universal of House of
Justice
said it is OK. Just don't try to rework the Baha'i Revelation (like
you were
going to - NOT). So nothing to worry about. One thing to ask as you
learn
more about it - is the ACIM something to believe in or is it more of a
set of
possibly useful tools?
In case you are appalled by the reaction to your innocent post, the
combatants
are continuing a long running battle and have attached it to your post
even
though it has nothing to do with it.
BTW Kent, if you read Susan's original reply that set you off, she
said that
from what little she knew of it, she didn't care for it but that it
was probably
OK. Again I suggest that possibly some of your posts may need to be
moderated. Are you really the only moderator? That is terrible for
you!
What happened with the team of people who were moderating? How do
we recruit them?
Cheers,
Tom |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:49 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Jun 29, 6:26 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth is not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that your
view?
|
No, and, like Susan, I substantially agree with Moojan Momen's view of
the subject. As a sociologist, I would even go further. IMO, "truth,"
aside from God (al-haqq or the True One), is a relative divine or
human construction. As our own social constructions of truth can
change (according to our wills), so can God's construction of revealed
truth change (according to His Will). From that standpoint, each
religion or other ideology can, **self-referentially**, be considered
a "truth system. I hope that makes sense.
| Quote: | Do you mean Blavatsky's _Key to Theosophy_? Where do I find her version of
Progressive Revelation?
|
As I said, Blavatsky did not teach progressive revelation. To her,
divine truth was a constant.
| Quote: | Those are some of the reasons I keep saying use of Neo-Platonic language in
reference to Baha'i ideas is wrong. These ideas, like the idea invoked by
the word "Logos" are not Baha'i ideas. Ascribing the language of
Neo-Platonism to Baha'i ideas is misleading and forcing wrong ideas into
Baha'i Writings.
|
Because it is one of the major language games used in the Baha'i
texts.
| Quote: | So I ask again, why do you speak Greek here?
|
I already explained that.
| Quote: | I wouldn't go so far as to say that is the sole reason why but common sense
is certainly one of the rasons. We would all do well to consult common
sense when deciding which beliefs' sets and philosophies we will call our
own.
|
Common sense is based on experience - often through trial and error.
It is a proto-scientific (but the scientific method absent controls).
As such, it is only as useful as our experiences may be.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
| Quote: | I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth is not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that your
view?
|
Kent,
Progressive Revelation is the *main* meaning behind Shoghi Effendi's
statement that religous truth is relative but I never indicated it was
the only one. I'm largely in agreement with Moojan Momen on this
topic.
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Jun 29, 3:22 pm, "Kent Johnson" <k...@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I don't understand. Are you saying that personally you believe mostly like
Momen, but as a sociologist you believe something different? Something
further?
|
I am saying that I agree with Momen. However, as a sociologist, I
would expand the concept of epistemic relativism to include issues
which he did not focus on, such as the relativity of truth in human,
social constructions. As a sociologist of religion, I define "truth"
as however "truth" is constructed in a particular religion (at a
specific time). As a Baha'i, I would define "truth" as whatever is
constructed as such by a Prophet and/or His successors.
| Quote: | Why do you use these different names for God? Are you only referring to
certain aspects of God with this explanation? Only concerning His Truth?
|
Because we were discussing the subject of truth.
| Quote: | This aspect of God that you refer to above with two names, this "Truth" is a
relative divine, which means the same thing to you as human construction.
Is that correct?
|
The True One (al-haqq) is not what I would call a construction. It is,
as you said, one of the Names of God. Truth (haqiqat), in a general
sense, is, IMO, a relative construction.
| Quote: | I don't understand how you can argue that since we can change our mind about
what constitutes religious Truth, that Truth itself changes. I don't deny
that God's Truth changes, just not for the same reasons as our religious
truths change.
|
I am making a distinction between truth, as it is constructed by each
Prophet, and truth, as it is constructed by ordinary humans. The first
issue is theological. The second is sociological.
| Quote: | You said: "What was revealed by each new "avatar" is identical to what was
revealed by the preceding ones." Is that a teaching of her's?
|
Yes, that is my understanding of her view. She was a proponent of her
own version of the perennial philosophy (objective idealism), which
has been incorporated into many new-agey groups (though often changed
to subjective idealism).
| Quote: | I don't understand. Neo-Platonism is a "major language game used in the
Baha'i texts"? Can you support that assertion?
|
I don't know how I can do that in an email message. Neoplatonism/
Aristotelianism is, for instance, the basic language game of _Some
Answered Questions_, including where `Abdu'l-Baha refers to the
rational soul and to involution or emanation.
Mark Foster |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Are you really the only moderator? That is terrible for
| Quote: | you!
What happened with the team of people who were moderating? How do
we recruit them?
|
Dear Tom,
Some of them retired. I'm still officially a moderator but the
computer which had the program with which the moderation is done broke
down, and I've not yet been able to get on a new computer.
I apologize to Catherine that her innocent question got used in this fashion.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Dear Susan-
What does Moohan say about truth please?
Here is a quote I found.
"Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly
refer the seeker to the Word itself—and why any explanations we make
to
ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the
Word—and the Word alone."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National
Spiritual Assembly of Canada, June 4, 1957)
regards,
doug
On Jun 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth
is not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that
your
view?
Kent,
Progressive Revelation is the *main* meaning behind Shoghi Effendi's
statement that religous truth is relative but I never indicated it was
the only one. I'm largely in agreement with Moojan Momen on this
topic.
Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Dear Susan-
What does Moohan say about truth please?
Here is a quote I found.
"Divine Truth is relative and that is why we are enjoined to constantly
refer the seeker to the Word itself—and why any explanations we make
to
ease the journey of the soul of any individual must be based on the
Word—and the Word alone."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to the National
Spiritual Assembly of Canada, June 4, 1957)
regards,
doug
On Jun 29, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I have heard Baha'is argue right here in the srb that religious truth
is not
relative *except* from age to age. That truth is re-written with the
appearance of each Manifestation of God. That within each Revelation
religious truth is fixed. I believe that is Susan's view. Is that
your
view?
Kent,
Progressive Revelation is the *main* meaning behind Shoghi Effendi's
statement that religous truth is relative but I never indicated it was
the only one. I'm largely in agreement with Moojan Momen on this
topic.
Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
Hi Tom,
| Quote: | Again I suggest that possibly some of your posts may need to be
moderated.
|
According to what set of standards, Tom?
Although it is against the charter to discuss person and personality I
believe this is a different issue.
I am offended by Baha'i cliquishness. It seems to me that Baha'is jump all
over people as though their beliefs need to be approved, and that is not the
Baha'i Faith. Our Faith is inclusive, universal, community based, spiritual
and lastly intellectual.
So if you want to attack me I am all for it. The charter says don't do it,
but my email address is kent@compx2.com and I will answer all attacks and
charges.
In the mean time, the issue I am discussing here is what was said that was
against the charter? And if we find that it was not against the charter,
should we change the charter? Prohibit something else?
--Kent
"drgoplayer" <tsuki190@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaKdnfDTAZXPWfrVnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Jun 27, 8:20 am, mysticmind...@webtv.net (catherine monroe) wrote:
I am a member of the Bahai Faith and I have been since july of
2007. About two months ago I came across the book--A Course in
Miracles-- and they say its a spiritual path not a religion. Its main
theme is the world that we live in a dream that we made up ourselves
with the help of our ego(devil) and that we never left heaven.
I'ld like to think that A Course in Miracles picks up were the
Bahai faith left off.
My question is would it be ok for me to belive in both the Bahai
faith & A Course in Miracles? Can the two be mixed?
Hi Catherine,
In case you missed it in all sound and fury, the Universal of House of
Justice
said it is OK. Just don't try to rework the Baha'i Revelation (like
you were
going to - NOT). So nothing to worry about. One thing to ask as you
learn
more about it - is the ACIM something to believe in or is it more of a
set of
possibly useful tools?
In case you are appalled by the reaction to your innocent post, the
combatants
are continuing a long running battle and have attached it to your post
even
though it has nothing to do with it.
BTW Kent, if you read Susan's original reply that set you off, she
said that
from what little she knew of it, she didn't care for it but that it
was probably
OK. Again I suggest that possibly some of your posts may need to be
moderated. Are you really the only moderator? That is terrible for
you!
What happened with the team of people who were moderating? How do
we recruit them?
Cheers,
Tom
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 11:51 pm Post subject: Re: A Course in Miracles & Bahai Faith |
|
|
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Douglas McAdam
<douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Susan-
What does Moohan say about truth please?
|
Dear Doug,
I'm talking about Moojan, not Moohan. He would extend the concept of
relativity of religious truth to the unknowability of God when it
comes to relating the Baha'i Faith to things like Buddhism. A lot of
Baha'is have objected to his perspective, but I don't.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
