| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:05 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
 |
|
On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I'm curious. What do you see wrong with this, is it that the
important link
is absent or that it will never be found?
It is not even clear what Abdu'l-Baha meant by a 'missing link. ' Our
evolution is a series of links.
warmest, Susan
|
Hi Susan-
I'm not up to date on science but I seem to recall that there are gaps
in the theory of evolution that have not been explained.
regards,
doug
> |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan-
Further to my recent response about man being distinctly human chance
happened upon this quote -
"The Bahá’í Faith teaches man was always potentially man, even
when
passing through lower stages of evolution. Because he has more powers,
and subtler powers than the animal, when he turns towards evil he
becomes more vicious than an animal because of these very powers."
Shoghi Effendi, Letter of 4 October 1950
regards,
doug
On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I'm curious. What do you see wrong with this, is it that the
important link
is absent or that it will never be found?
It is not even clear what Abdu'l-Baha meant by a 'missing link. ' Our
evolution is a series of links.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Can you give an example of an
| Quote: | ethical application and one of matters of doctrine, law or making definitive
statements about the Baha'i Teachings? I think I agree but I need some
clarification.
|
Dear Doug,
As I recall this whole discussion came up because Kent was using some
statement from PUP statement about what constituted a Baha'i as
definitive rather than what Shoghi Effendi said on this issue.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Dear Doug,
What the Guardian says is that we were always *potentially* man. I
don't think that precludes having a common ancestor with the apes. In
the end, however, this is a question which must be resolved by
science, not religion.
warmest, Susan
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Douglas McAdam
<douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan-
Further to my recent response about man being distinctly human chance
happened upon this quote -
"The Bahá'í Faith teaches man was always potentially man, even when
passing
through lower stages of evolution. Because he has more powers, and subtle
r
powers than the animal, when he turns towards evil he becomes more viciou
s
than an animal because of these very powers." Shoghi Effendi, Letter of 4
October 1950
regards,
doug
On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
I'm curious. What do you see wrong with this, is it that the important
link
is absent or that it will never be found?
It is not even clear what Abdu'l-Baha meant by a 'missing link. ' Our
evolution is a series of links.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:36 pm Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
| Quote: | I'm not up to date on science but I seem to recall that there are gaps in
the theory of evolution that have not been explained.
|
Dear Doug,
That's not what Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said. He indicated we
supposedly had all the links but one.
The notion of a missing link is a rather popular misconception which
presumes that human being descended from the same species of apes
which exist today. Darwin never said that.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:23 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan-
Actually the subject came up by your response to what Kent wrote and in
which he included a quote from the Master in PUP.
In any case I still would like to see an example as I requested. I'm
interested and curious as to how you came up with this conclusion and I
make it a point to keep quotes related to certain subjects.
regards,
doug
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | Can you give an example of an
ethical application and one of matters of doctrine, law or making
definitive
statements about the Baha'i Teachings? I think I agree but I need
some
clarification.
Dear Doug,
As I recall this whole discussion came up because Kent was using some
statement from PUP statement about what constituted a Baha'i as
definitive rather than what Shoghi Effendi said on this issue.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:26 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan-
I'm not saying we have a common ancestor. Quite the opposite. My
understanding from the Writings is that we were/are distinctly human
even though our appearance may have resembled an animal. I agree
science will have to resolve this which in itself shows that we really
cannot argue either way with certainty.
regards,
doug
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:32 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | Dear Doug,
What the Guardian says is that we were always *potentially* man. I
don't think that precludes having a common ancestor with the apes. In
the end, however, this is a question which must be resolved by
science, not religion.
warmest, Susan
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Douglas McAdam
douglasmcadam@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hi Susan-
Further to my recent response about man being distinctly human chance
happened upon this quote -
"The Bahá'í Faith teaches man was always potentially man, even
when
passing
through lower stages of evolution. Because he has more powers, and
subtler
powers than the animal, when he turns towards evil he becomes more
vicious
than an animal because of these very powers." Shoghi Effendi, Letter
of 4
October 1950
regards,
doug
On Jul 22, 2008, at 9:26 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
I'm curious. What do you see wrong with this, is it that the
important
link
is absent or that it will never be found?
It is not even clear what Abdu'l-Baha meant by a 'missing link. '
Our
evolution is a series of links.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:29 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan-
According to the quote in question he also said that man was never an
animal. And that is the important distinction to me. So how did the
idea that man descended from an animal get started if not by Darwin?
"The lost link of Darwinian theory is itself a proof that man is not
an animal. How is it possible to have all the links present and that
important link absent? Its absence is an indication that man has never
been an animal. It will never be found."
regards,
doug
(Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 359)
On Jul 24, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Susan Maneck wrote:
| Quote: | I'm not up to date on science but I seem to recall that there are
gaps in
the theory of evolution that have not been explained.
Dear Doug,
That's not what Abdu'l-Baha is reported to have said. He indicated we
supposedly had all the links but one.
The notion of a missing link is a rather popular misconception which
presumes that human being descended from the same species of apes
which exist today. Darwin never said that.
warmest, Susan |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan,
| Quote: | ...we can't be sure of what Abdu'l-Baha said.
|
Are you saying that specifically about P. 359 of PUP? Or are you just
saying that is what these passages say from Shoghi Effendi and the House
that you and Mark keep quoting?
Because if you can state with authority that specific passage is
unauthenticated we have merely an issue of bad translation.
But if it is or might be authenticated one day, then beyond bad translation
it is an issue of whether or not 'Abdu'l-Baha could or would represent His
beliefs on scientific issues in His religious texts, and what that means for
Baha'is. We could go on to find out what He might have wanted to say based
on word meanings and other works with similar passages.
But I strongly disagree with the assertion that those two passages you two
keep quoting say that we should discount the entire books. They caution us
that at some future date some of these passages might be questioned or
revised, that is all.
| Quote: | Were it not the case that phraseology was extremely important in a
number of cases this whole discussion would have never come up.
|
I would put the burden of proof on those who wish to discount the works.
The vast bulk of that work is just wonderful, no doubt directly from the
Mind of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
So, if there were such a case, wouldn't Baha'i academics be aware of them?
If there were lots, weren't there be lists? Wouldn't there be letters
cautioning us about misrepresenting texts that had been published previous
to finding these Covenant Breakers' agendas?
| Quote: | No, what we should be talking about is which parts of these books
*can* be authenticated. But you need to have some knowledge of Persian
to join in that conversation.
|
Why?
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hLydnRmV7rkcKxXVnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | I disagree on two counts. The issue is not that we don't know what He sa
id
but rather if the transcript of what He said is (what Mark calls)
"scriptural", if it holds authority for believers.
|
Dear Kent,
Both things are at issue. The reason those talks don't carry authority
is precisely *because* we can't be sure of what Abdu'l-Baha said.
I believe we do know to
| Quote: | a relatively high degree of certainty what He said. He had competent
translators,
|
You can belikeve whatever you like, but you are in no position to know
that. Shoghi Effendi did not think so highly of Abdu'l-Baha's
translators. He wrote:
"I am at a loss to explain that strange mentality that inclines to
uphold as the sole criterion of the truth of the Bahá'í Teachings what
is admittedly only an obscure and unauthenticated translation of an
oral statement made by 'Abdu'l-Bahá, in defiance and total disregard
of the available text of all of His universally recognized writings. I
truly deplore the unfortunate distortions that have resulted in days
past from the incapacity of the interpreter to grasp the meaning of
'Abdu'l-Bahá, and from his incompetence to render adequately such
truths as have been revealed to him by the Master's statements."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 4)
Some of these translators had agendas of their own and subsequently
became Covenant breakers.
The only problem we have, so far as I can see, is
| Quote: | phraseology on certain, so far as we have seen, unimportant points (but t
hat
is a subjective measure).
|
Were it not the case that phraseology was extremely important in a
number of cases this whole discussion would have never come up.
| Quote: |
My point is that those talks most assuredly show us the thoughts of
Abdu'l-Baha. And if there is a question of "unauthenticated texts" we
should be talking about which passages in those books might be
unauthenticated, not discount the entire books.
|
No, what we should be talking about is which parts of these books
*can* be authenticated. But you need to have some knowledge of Persian
to join in that conversation.
| Quote: | Why would a Baha'i base a theory of human development on what Abdu'l-Baha
said in a talk? Even if He did know something about evolution and human
development it is certainly not what He wanted His faithful to do. He
wanted us, according to these unauthenticated texts, to become distinguis
hed
for loving humanity, for unity and accord, for love and justice.
|
Then why did He talk about it in the first place?
Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Kent Johnson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Hi Susan,
This thread is easy to trace back.
But Susan, you are the one who tied it to my comments pointing out that
'Abdu'l-Baha said in many places things like "A man may be a Bahá'í in name
only." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 336) or "Be
illumined, be spiritual, be divine, be glorious, be quickened of God, be a
Bahá'í." (Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 453) those
are unauthenticated and, according to you, dubious as to meaning.
But when He said "Thy letter was received and we note that thou art engaged
in teaching the children of the believers, that these tender little ones
have been learning The Hidden Words and the prayers and what it meaneth to
be a Bahá'í." (Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p.
142), now THAT is authenticated and we can use that one to help define what
it means to be a Baha'i.
So apparently that is your issue, Susan, not mine. If you go back to the
beginning of this thread you will find my issue: Pilgrims' notes are not the
same thing as a document that might not have on file the original Persian
language document from which a translation was made.
--Kent
"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zeednR9FCrWAKhXVnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Can you give an example of an
ethical application and one of matters of doctrine, law or making
definitive
statements about the Baha'i Teachings? I think I agree but I need some
clarification.
Dear Doug,
As I recall this whole discussion came up because Kent was using some
statement from PUP statement about what constituted a Baha'i as
definitive rather than what Shoghi Effendi said on this issue.
warmest, Susan
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
| Quote: | According to the quote in question he also said that man was never an
animal. And that is the important distinction to me.
|
Dear Doug,
And that is what is problematic from a scientific standpoint.
So how did the idea
| Quote: | that man descended from an animal get started if not by Darwin?
|
I didn't say that Darwin didn't teach that man descended from an
animal. I said he didn't indicate that we descended from any of the
existing apes which is where the notion of a missing link comes from.
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Susan Maneck
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
om> wrote:
| Quote: | Hi Susan,
...we can't be sure of what Abdu'l-Baha said.
Are you saying that specifically about P. 359 of PUP?
|
Dear Kent,
I'm saying it is true of any talk which we do not have the original
transcript to compare it against. If you can find the orignal Persian
transcript of what is on p. 369 of PUP and demonstrate that it is
consistent with what we have in English, then and *only* then can we
be sure it actually represents what Abdu'l-Baha said.
| Quote: | Because if you can state with authority that specific passage is
unauthenticated we have merely an issue of bad translation.
|
Sorry, the burden of proof would be on you to establish that a
specific passage *is* authentic.
| Quote: | I would put the burden of proof on those who wish to discount the works.
The vast bulk of that work is just wonderful, no doubt directly from the
Mind of 'Abdu'l-Baha.
|
Sorry, until a text is fully authenticated it isn't.
| Quote: | So, if there were such a case, wouldn't Baha'i academics be aware of them?
If there were lots, weren't there be lists?
|
No, there are no lists but there are Persian books which contain the
original transcripts for some of those texts. If we wish to work with
one we try and see if we can find it.
Wouldn't there be letters
| Quote: | cautioning us about misrepresenting texts that had been published previous
to finding these Covenant Breakers' agendas?
|
The above doesn't make sense to me.
| Quote: |
No, what we should be talking about is which parts of these books
*can* be authenticated. But you need to have some knowledge of Persian
to join in that conversation.
Why?
|
Becuase all the documentation which might establish the authenticity
of such texts is in Persian. .
warmest, Susan |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Poststructuralist
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Kent Johnson wrote:
| Quote: | So whether or not 'Abdu'l-Baha could be termed a "creationist" is depen
dent
firstly on putting together an outline of what He believed on the subje
ct,
then classifying those beliefs.
|
`Abdu'l-Baha's discussion of the subject relies as much on Neoplatonic
terminology as it does on the terms of Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry
Huxley. IMO, it is more than classifying what He believed. It is placing
them in their proper contexts.
| Quote: | It would be perfectly acceptable and accurate, would it not Mark, to us
e the
texts from PUP and Paris Talks to outline those beliefs, because those
works
have a high degree of accuracy when representing 'Abdu'l-Baha's beliefs
...
Wouldn't you say so, Mark?
|
I have no way of subjectively determining whether they are accurate.
--
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: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:35 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: | His point being that our spirituality does not evolve from nature.
|
For what it's worth, that is also my understanding. I believe that
`Abdu'l-Baha is, in light of the emphasis on biological evolution,
focusing on the spiritual uniqueness of the human kingdom or category,
not that He was objecting to the scientific views expressed by Charles
Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley.
The spiritual uniqueness of humans is explained by `Abdu'l-Baha as the
human kingdom embracing the mineral, vegetable, and animal perfections
with the addition of the rational soul. In the spiritual *involution* of
man, those perfections are progressively gathered over the course of
human evolution.
Spiritually (not biologically), I think `Abdu'l-Baha's point is that the
human kingdom, distinguished by human spirits or rational souls, also
contains the lower kingdoms. He is thus providing a spiritual
counterbalance to the emphasis on physical evolution.
--
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: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:44 am Post subject: Re: Pilgrims' Notes |
|
|
Douglas McAdam wrote:
| Quote: | I'm taking this from my understanding of what the Master wrote in SAQ.
Also I seem to recall an article in the WO Mag by a scholar that was
titled something like Man, Distinctly Human.
|
I don't recall that article. Can you summarize it?
| Quote: | Are you saying that science is absolutely correct in its theory of
evolution? Are we just highly evolved animals? Where does our
intelligence come from? Was it always there in mineral, vegetable and
animal but it needed evolution to appear in humans?
|
I am saying two things: First, that I don't believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
directly discussing evolution (other than as an analogy for spiritual
involution). Second, that, even if I did believe `Abdu'l-Baha was
promoting a type of old-earth, or progressive, creationism, I would not
give His comments scientific authority. Ideas, like the Virgin Birth for
instance, can have scriptural authority without having historical or
scientific authority.
| Quote: | I seem to recall the term "distinctly human" in an article in the WO
Mag. some years back. Course we can say that our understanding of all
this is better now than when that article appeared. But then we also
must admit our current understanding is temporary.
|
My understanding is that revealed religion and the sciences have their
own particular domains of authority, and that those domains should
remain separate.
--
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 |
|
