| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:33 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
 |
|
| Quote: | But now you agree that if we do or if we don't have the original transcript,
Persian will help.
|
Dear Kent,
I suggested it might help you to guess what the term 'might' be if we
don't have the transcript, but I sure don't like basing my
understanding on guesses.
| Quote: | The point of the Pilgrims' Notes thread that I started was to make the point
that the Baha'i community is much too quick to throw away two treasures
based upon the declaration that some of the passages in those two treasures
may not be authenticated.
|
No one suggested we throw them away but you. We only insisted that
unless we have original transcript of the talk they cannot be treated
as authoritative.
| Quote: |
You continue that error now: if we don't have the transcript, Persian WILL
HELP US become clearer on 'Abdu'l-Baha's meanings through text comparisons.
|
No, the key word is MIGHT not WILL. And it is a very tenuous 'might' at that.
| Quote: | Sure we can never be sure, and it will be up to the House of Justice to
decide if the texts can be used to make scriptural clarifications, so there
is very little to doubt.
|
That's not typically what the House of Justice does.
| Quote: | I agree with you. My issue is that discounting the books, putting an
asterisk next to them when we just don't know to what small extent these two
works might be un-authenticated, knowing so far there are no known
substantive errors, at least not posted here...
|
First off pointing out that they may not be authenticated is not
discounting them, it is simply acknowledging the nature of these texts
and in my view any text should be treated as unauthenticated unless we
know it *is* authenticated.
| Quote: | So discounting these works is also quite premature.
|
"Discounting", "robbing the community" etc. were always your words,
not ours. We don't regard acknowledging that these texts are not part
of the authoritative Writings as discounting them. In my opinion
anything really crucial in the Teachings is going to be found in the
Writings anyhow and while Abdu'l-Baha's talks are inspirational (and
great models for how to present the Faith to others) we need not rely
on them for most other purposes.
Susan |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM, tsuki190 <tsuki190@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The charge of :"throw away two treasures" has been dealt with in several posts
by several persons and Kent should 'throw away' that phrase and never use it
again.
|
Dear Tom,
I agree. It only makes people upset.
| Quote: |
We might profitably discuss how these books should be used.
|
Correct. And both the Guardian and the House made it clear that we may
use these sources for things like the spiritual portion of Feast.
Their status
| Quote: | as unauthenticated is clearly based on statements from our highest institution
and the central figures so that should be accepted and we can move on from
there.
|
Let's be a little more careful here. The House indicated that *some*
of these talks cannot be authenticated and that at some point we will
need to figure out the authority of each. But unless I've been able to
locate the Persian transcript of the talk in question, I tend to treat
it as unauthenticated.
| Quote: | The problem is that we really don't know where and how they do not reflect
His meaning accurately. So for describing the Baha'i teaching on complex
topics they are not a reliable source.
|
That would be my position. But I think whether the topic is complex or
simple we need to take care not to make any dogmatic assertions based
on sources such as this without support from the Writings themselves.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:40 pm Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 8:40 AM, tsuki190 <tsuki190@gmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | The charge of :"throw away two treasures" has been dealt with in several posts
by several persons and Kent should 'throw away' that phrase and never use it
again.
|
Dear Tom,
I agree. It only makes people upset.
| Quote: |
We might profitably discuss how these books should be used.
|
Correct. And both the Guardian and the House made it clear that we may
use these sources for things like the spiritual portion of Feast.
Their status
| Quote: | as unauthenticated is clearly based on statements from our highest institution
and the central figures so that should be accepted and we can move on from
there.
|
Let's be a little more careful here. The House indicated that *some*
of these talks cannot be authenticated and that at some point we will
need to figure out the authority of each. But unless I've been able to
locate the Persian transcript of the talk in question, I tend to treat
it as unauthenticated.
| Quote: | The problem is that we really don't know where and how they do not reflect
His meaning accurately. So for describing the Baha'i teaching on complex
topics they are not a reliable source.
|
That would be my position. But I think whether the topic is complex or
simple we need to take care not to make any dogmatic assertions based
on sources such as this without support from the Writings themselves.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Dean Betts wrote:
| Quote: | Would you plese clarify for me what "approximates the metaphor of hellf
ire"? |
Dean:
What I suggested is that al-nafs al-ammAra (the insistent, or
commanding, self, i.e., the "ego" in common usage) appoximated the
metaphor of hellfire. The Arabic, "nafs," is a cognate of the Hebrew,
"nefesh," which is often translated as "soul" in the Old Testament.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Dean Betts wrote:
| Quote: | Would you plese clarify for me what "approximates the metaphor of hellf
ire"? |
Dean:
What I suggested is that al-nafs al-ammAra (the insistent, or
commanding, self, i.e., the "ego" in common usage) appoximated the
metaphor of hellfire. The Arabic, "nafs," is a cognate of the Hebrew,
"nefesh," which is often translated as "soul" in the Old Testament.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: Re: What is a Baha'i? |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | I don't understand, Mark, why you are now speaking Arabic.
|
I used Arabic because it is one of the original languages of Revelation.
--
Regards, Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. * http://www.markfoster.net
"... the modern challenge is how to live with uncertainty. The
basic fault lines today are not between people with different
beliefs but between people who hold these beliefs with an
element of uncertainty and people who hold these beliefs with
a pretense of certitude." — Peter L. Berger, sociologist |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
Hi Susan:
You, below: "Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes."
Susan Maneck, on these pages Friday, May 16, 2008 1:01 PM: "Promulgation of
Universal Peace is not part of the Writings, Kent. It is mostly pilgrim's
notes. That's my point."
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:_o-dnYIOscmlJBHVnZ2dnUVZ_sPinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | It seems you are saying that when 'Abdu'l-Baha says in various places in
various words in PUP or Paris Talks "Be a Baha'i" you discount that
statement to some extent, do you not?
|
Dear Kent,
My position is that it cannot be used to negate this statement from
the Guardian, which is how a number of ex-Baha'is on the internet are
trying to use it:
I would only venture to state very briefly and as adequately as
present circumstances permit the principal factors that must be taken
into consideration before deciding whether a person may be regarded a
true believer or not. Full recognition of the station of the
Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Bahá'í Cause, as
set forth in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament; unreserved acceptance of, and
submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal and
steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will; and
close association with the spirit as well as the form of the present
day Bahá'í administration throughout the world -- these I conceive to
be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be fairly,
discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a vital
decision.
(Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 90)
If you want to call that 'discounting' that's your choice, but it is
not my words.
| Quote: | Do you believe we should or should not be inspired by those words?
|
You can be inspired by them all you want, but if you were to try and
use the statement from PUP to the effect that to be a Baha'i was to be
a lover of all mankind as the criteria for enrollment rather than the
Guardian's statement, while serving on your LSA, it would be
inappropriate.
| Quote: | You know I prefer to talk about what we believe than what we say, so if y
ou
could clarify your comments to address the issues we are talking about I
would appreciate it.
|
Your words reflect your beliefs as well as your attitudes towards others.
| Quote: |
Accusing people of 'robbing the community' is not the same as questionin
g.
I was speaking about questioning the authenticity of PUP and Paris Talks.
|
Yes, I know that was what you were speaking of and I'm saying calling
it that was most inappropriate.
| Quote: | It is when there is disagreement with the meaning of a passage that it
should be questioned, authentication sought. Not when the books are
referred to in a general manner should we immediately scream "pilgrims'
notes".
|
Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes. And it was over the issue
of your preferring a certain passage of from that source over an
authoritative source which raised this question in the first place.
The issue then died down for quite sometime until you decided to
reopen it out of the blue by starting a thread making all kinds of
ludicrous accusations against Mark and myself.
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:21 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan:
You, below: "Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes."
Susan Maneck, on these pages Friday, May 16, 2008 1:01 PM: "Promulgation of
Universal Peace is not part of the Writings, Kent. It is mostly pilgrim's
notes. That's my point."
--Kent
|
That's not *screaming* pilgrim's notes. You had referred to PUP as the
Writings which it is not. My statement "mostly" might have been an
exaggeration since we don't really now how much of those talks can be
authenticate or not.
I'll make you a deal, though. You don't refer to PUP as the Writings
and I won't refer to it as pilgrim's notes. :-)
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
Hi Susan,
So now the only question in your mind is whether or not PUP is "mostly"
pilgrims notes?
I am curious how can PUP be "notes" but not "writings".
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tIGdnfrf5ofFggzVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
Hi Susan:
You, below: "Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes."
Susan Maneck, on these pages Friday, May 16, 2008 1:01 PM: "Promulgation
of
Universal Peace is not part of the Writings, Kent. It is mostly pilgrim's
notes. That's my point."
--Kent
That's not *screaming* pilgrim's notes. You had referred to PUP as the
Writings which it is not. My statement "mostly" might have been an
exaggeration since we don't really now how much of those talks can be
authenticate or not.
I'll make you a deal, though. You don't refer to PUP as the Writings
and I won't refer to it as pilgrim's notes. :-)
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
tsuki190
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
They were talks. Abdul-Baha came into a church, meeting hall. or whatever,
He assessed the audience and made a speech. There is a Baha'i joke that
Abdul-Baha would ask how much time He had. If it was 5 minutes then "The
Baha'i Faith has 3 principles" and if it was 1 hour, then the Baha'i Faith has 9
principles".
Writings were written down by the author or dictated to a scribe and reviewed
and signed.
Some portions of these books have text versions authenticated by Abdul-Baha
and these could be included among the Writings if we are looking at an
approved translation. I certainly do not know which portions might have
authenticated text versions, Susan has indicated that she does not know.
So the assumption is that something is not authenticated unless you know
that it is. Otherwise it is good for spiritual inspiration and general understanding
but not for detailed analysis.
Tom
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan,
So now the only question in your mind is whether or not PUP is "mostly"
pilgrims notes?
I am curious how can PUP be "notes" but not "writings".
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tIGdnfrf5ofFggzVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
Hi Susan:
You, below: "Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes."
Susan Maneck, on these pages Friday, May 16, 2008 1:01 PM: "Promulgation
of
Universal Peace is not part of the Writings, Kent. It is mostly pilgrim's
notes. That's my point."
--Kent
That's not *screaming* pilgrim's notes. You had referred to PUP as the
Writings which it is not. My statement "mostly" might have been an
exaggeration since we don't really now how much of those talks can be
authenticate or not.
I'll make you a deal, though. You don't refer to PUP as the Writings
and I won't refer to it as pilgrim's notes. :-)
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
tsuki190
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
They were talks. Abdul-Baha came into a church, meeting hall. or whatever,
He assessed the audience and made a speech. There is a Baha'i joke that
Abdul-Baha would ask how much time He had. If it was 5 minutes then "The
Baha'i Faith has 3 principles" and if it was 1 hour, then the Baha'i Faith has 9
principles".
Writings were written down by the author or dictated to a scribe and reviewed
and signed.
Tom
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 4:56 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan,
So now the only question in your mind is whether or not PUP is "mostly"
pilgrims notes?
I am curious how can PUP be "notes" but not "writings".
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tIGdnfrf5ofFggzVnZ2dnUVZ_tLinZ2d@giganews.com...
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Kent Johnson <kent@compx2.com> wrote:
Hi Susan:
You, below: "Sorry Kent, no one screamed pilgrim's notes."
Susan Maneck, on these pages Friday, May 16, 2008 1:01 PM: "Promulgation
of
Universal Peace is not part of the Writings, Kent. It is mostly pilgrim's
notes. That's my point."
--Kent
That's not *screaming* pilgrim's notes. You had referred to PUP as the
Writings which it is not. My statement "mostly" might have been an
exaggeration since we don't really now how much of those talks can be
authenticate or not.
I'll make you a deal, though. You don't refer to PUP as the Writings
and I won't refer to it as pilgrim's notes. :-)
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard H. Gravelly
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 6:50 pm Post subject: Re: The belief, not the person |
|
|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Johnson" <kent@compx2.com>
Kent wrote
| Quote: | Hi Susan,
So now the only question in your mind is whether or not PUP is "mostly"
pilgrims notes?
I am curious how can PUP be "notes" but not "writings".
|
Kent, If I may reply: If you look at the beginning of each talk you will
note the words "Notes taken by" or words to that effect. They are "notes".
Richard.
> |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
