Larry failed the Path
wahid...@gmail.com
dysfunctional attachments. You, Larry and Michael, have failed
miserably on that score since you are still dysfunctionally attached to
the idol of baha'ism and the golden calf of a so called "profit."
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
No one but no one human has ever functioned perfectly, we all strive
towards better functioning.
Everyone but everyone fails, then succeeds, then fails once again, to
succeed another day. No recrimination. No blame. No imperfection, repeat the
gaze. Only the field of potential existence, that field which is required
for there to be any existence in the first place.The world of apparent
opposites, of apparent dichotomies.
Sure there is negativity but we have a choice on whether or not we indulge
ourselves in that negativity. We can choose to make our focus the negativity
of others, or we can choose to make the postive that exists in all people
our focus, even if that postive only exists in the form of potential.
Sure I've failed Nima, we all have, to make the best of this world, to see
whats best in this world, to see whats best in each other. But I can change,
I can evolve; so too can you and each and every one of us.
What I see Nima is that gem which represents the entirety of the human
spiritual experience, Abrahamic through Buddhist, through Amazonian Shaman
to Taoist the whole kit and kaboodle. Each facet a window through which
Illumination enters our world, no one facet lord over the other, each facet
integral to that gem which is our entire human spiritual heritage.
Dysfunction is relative to how people coexist with their fellow human
beings. I've seen Downs syndrome folks who coexist just fine with their
fellow man and woman, there is a lesson to be learned in this.
Yours Larry
wahid...@gmail.com
_attachments_. Quit the sound-bite platitudes and address the issue.
How can you claim to aspire to the Path when you are attached to idols
yourself?
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
I'm not attracted to idiots in particular, just people in general. Thing is
I empathise with most people, even you.
I never give up on people, even when they call me an ass hole, heck some of
my best friends have called me an ass hole once or twice I'm sure.
Empathy doesn't cost me anything, and it does no one else any harm either.
Like I said I look for what's good in people, I try and see the Face of the
Divine in all. It's only when we see that Face no matter where we look that
It is beginning to reflect in ourselves.
Yours Larry
Finnegan's Wake
<wahid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112760013....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Would it be better if he attached himself to the idols you choose to hang
on?
>
> W
>
wahid...@gmail.com
W
wahid...@gmail.com
In typical baha'i-fashion, you are skirting around the issue. Please
answer the question. How can you claim to be on the Path when you are
attached to a form, an idol such as baha'ism.
Please answer the question.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
' How can you claim to be on the Path when you are attached to a form, an
idol such as baha'ism. Please answer the question.'
My pleasure.
I no longer see the Baha'i Faith, Baha'ism as you term it, or Babi
metaphysicsism, or any other ism for that matter, as being terms which
separate us from one another.
Using the motto-mantra ' there is only us, we are them' for the past
several years has had an effect on me that I wasn't expecting. Interestingly
I have found myself adhering to the most great unity which Abdu'l-Baha'
mentioned .
That most great unity where all religions are reconciled, where all human
expressions of and experiences of spirituality are reconciled.
What Path this is I'm not quite sure of yet, I'm not really sure if it can
be isolated out as a single way or tao or not or even if such a
differentiation is necessary..
One of the side effects has been that I can clearly see, warts and all, the
limitations of all isms, of all lesser unities. Yet I can clearly see as
well the Illumination to be had from the " original intention " of the
founders of all isms.
I recognize that the most great unity transcends even Abdu'l-Baha's and
Baha'u'llah's vision of what it is to be. They believed that the most great
unity would be mono-theistic based. I've come to believe that the most great
unity transcends the limitations of all isms whether they be mono-theism,
Buddhism, Taoism, Jungianism, whatever ism.
Whether adhering to the most great unity disqualifies me from membership in
the Baha'i Faith I'm not sure and to tell the truth it doesn't matter one
way or the other; the reason being that I recognise that I am a person of
Baha' regardless, in that I have set my face towards the all-glorious
Horizon.
"Every receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the fragrance of His
garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards the all-glorious
Horizon is reckoned among the people of Baha in the Crimson Book. Grasp ye,
in My Name, the chalice of My loving-kindness, drink then your fill in My
glorious and wondrous remembrance."
(Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 220)
This Horizon for me is one and the same as my original face in the Zen
sense, the Face of the Divine, whatever you wish to term it. I now see this
Face wherever I turn mine. I see this Face in you.
The Bab's approach to the gnostic experience was quite different from
Baha'u'llah's. Both approaches are legitimate expressions of the human
spiritual experience. We all integrate our spiritual experiences in a unique
way, in a unique manner.
My sense is that the Bab did not set Himself up as an intermediary of the
Divine but that He shared His Divinity with all others. Baha'u'llah's
experience differed. Both of Their experiences reflect Illumination in spite
of their diversity, in spite of the fact that both Their experiences are,
after all, very human experiences of the Divine.
My feeling is that we, as a kind, have used isms as a justification for
allowing ourselves to fall back into instinctual territorial behaviours.
That as we have evolved we see the need for unity but out instincts wins
out and we fall back into the same old territortial patterns.
This is explained in part with the Senex-Puer Aeterus dichotomy but as with
all such explainations whether they be myth-metaphor based or social science
based, the picture is incomplete until you stand back and get an overview, a
big picture.
This is where Buddha's Kalama Sutra has become a guiding principal in my
life.
" Then the Budhha gave them this advice, unique in the history of religions:
'Yes, Kalamas, it is proper that you have doubt, that you have perplexity,
for a doubt has arisen in a matter which is doubtful. Now, look you Kalamas,
do not be led by reports, or tradition, or hearsay. Be not led by the
authority of religious texts, nor by mere logic or inference, nor by
considering appearances, nor by the delight in speculative opinions, nor by
seeming possibilities, nor by the idea; "this is our teacher'. But, O
Kalamas, when you know for youselves that certain things are unwholesome
(akusala), and wrong, and bad, then give them up ... And when you know for
youselves that certain things are wholesome (kusala) and good, then accept
them and follow them.'
The Buddha went even further. He told the bhikkhus that a disciple should
examine even the Tathagata (Buddha) himself, so that he (the disciple) might
be fully convinced of the true value of the teacher whom he followed."
If you unmerciously apply this teaching to all knowledge, whether it be
'religious', 'spiritual', pychological, or philosophic knowledge, something
of great beauty occurs. You become enabled to differenciate wisdom from
ignorance.
If I have a 'Path' at all it is this differenciation. I don't claim to have
perfected this method but it is my feeling, my sense, that it is sound.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
The unity which is productive of unlimited results is first a unity of
mankind which recognizes that all are sheltered beneath the overshadowing
glory of the All-Glorious; that all are servants of one God; for all breathe
the same atmosphere, live upon the same earth, move beneath the same
heavens, receive effulgence 258 from the same sun and are under the
protection of one God. This is the most great unity, and its results are
lasting if humanity adheres to it; but mankind has hitherto violated it,
adhering to sectarian or other limited unities such as racial, patriotic or
unity of self-interests; therefore no great results have been forthcoming.
Nevertheless it is certain that the radiance and favors of God are
encompassing, minds have developed, perceptions have become acute, sciences
and arts are widespread and capacity exists for the proclamation and
promulgation of the real and ultimate unity of mankind which will bring
forth marvelous results. It will reconcile all religions, make warring
nations loving, cause hostile kings to become friendly and bring peace and
happiness to the human world. It will cement together the Orient and
Occident, remove forever the foundations of war and upraise the ensign of
the Most Great Peace. These limited unities are therefore signs of that
great unity which will make all the human family one by being productive of
the attractions of conscience in mankind.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 257)
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> One of the first important rules of the true Path is to give up
> dysfunctional attachments.
You mean, like going "Wah, wah, wahid, Paul must be a Baha'i
spy because he doesn't believe what I say, wah, wah wahid"?
Do, do, do the Holy Chicken,
Palu
wahid...@gmail.com
>I no longer see the Baha'i Faith, Baha'ism as you term it, or Babi
>metaphysicsism, or any other ism for that matter, as being terms which
>separate us from one another.
Then it would behoove you to drop baha'ism altogether because that is
exactly what it's designed to do.
W
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com
before. These conversations are way over your empty head.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
Now buzz off back over to your dark corner, limey cockroach.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
Now buzz off back over to your dark, smelly corner, limey cockroach.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
' Then it would behoove you to drop baha'ism altogether because that is
exactly what it's designed to do.'
Nima, the Baha'i Faith has changed since I signed my card some 35 years
ago, I've changed as well, in that I'm much more informed.
Shoghi Effendi's dominant Senex traits set in motion the
Adminocentricisation, the Senexisation of the Baha'i Faith. The creation in
1963 of a Universal House of Justice without a hereditary Guardian, as the
balance which both Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi himself saw as being necessary,
capped that process eliminating all chances for progessive adaptation, for
creative change and accomodation of Puer Aeternus-liberal Baha'is. The
creation of the nonscripturally based Board of Councillors and the ITC with
its 'protection' branch finished the job through creating an active means to
cull Baha'is with Puer Aeternus qualities from out of the Baha'i Faith
making It a religion for Senex-conservative-fundamentalist Baha'is alone.
This of course is why so many open minded and fair thinking people have left
are continuing to leave the Baha'i Faith in droves, exit by troops.
The Senex Universal House of Justice continues to hold out the carrot of '
entry by troops' but the Baha'i Faith in it's present form is so far from
It's Founders original vision of what It should be that 'entry by troops' is
nothing more than pie in the sky wishful thinking.
My Withdrawal post which was sent to both my Canadian N.S.A. and the
Universal House of Justice outlines the basis on which I will withdraw from
the Baha'i Faith. Like I've said elsewhere signing my declaration card was
only a formality to me. I knew then as I know now that I am a person of
Baha'.
Although it was only a formality I still stand by my motive for signing
that card. If The Universal House of Justice believes that I am too much of
a Puer Aeternus Baha'i to meet Their requirements for membership in Their
Senex organisation I want Them to come out and say so. They need to come
clean about the true motives for Their lack of leadership, They need to come
clean about Their motives for making The Baha'i Faith a Senex Baha'i only
organisation.
I am willing to concede that They may be unconscious of Their underlying
motives and that it is not simply to maintain the status quo, with Them at
the top of a wordly power pyramid, that They have displayed such utter
incompetance.
Their incompetance in totally ignoring the natural dynamic between Baha'is
with differing cognitive styles, liberal through conservative. Their
incompetance in not understanding the natural Senex/Aeternus dynamic which
Baha'u'llah wrote of extensively in His Kitab-i-Iqan though using different
terminology. Their incompetance in exacerbating the situation through
maginalizing Baha'is with Puer Aeternus-liberal qualities by labeling them
as an "internal opposition" and then setting Their minions of protection to
the task of disenfranchising those Baha'is who do not share Their Senex
Baha'i outlook
I'm not quite as prepared to believe as you are Nima that it is simply a
case of corruption that has motivated the Baha'i Administrative Order to
behave so poorly, to behave in a way which has poisoned the very atmosphere
of the Baha'i Faith making of it a spiritually unhealthy cult, to behave in
a manner that both Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' would be ashamed of. I am
willing to conceed, as I said above, that those responcible are largely
unconscious of what they've done, that they may even be well meaning
individuals but that they have been swept along by the natural Senex/Puer
Aeternus dynamic that has occured in all past religions. That dynamic which
seems to inevitably cause the Senex 'orthodoxy' to purge their Puer Aeternus
'liberal gnostic' coreligionists from their shared religion.
My Withdrawal post follows. As Abdu'l-Baha' said " to withdraw from such a
religion ( as the Baha'i Faith has become) would be a truly religious act ".
I recognise this Nima, although I somehow doubt that They are capable of
waking up to the facts I feel obliged to try and awaken Them.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
All the best!
Yours Larry
-------------------------------
Dear Judy, all members of the Canadian National Spiritual Assembly, all
members of The Universal House of Justice.
I came across Words of Abdu'l-Baha's today. It is with a great sadness and
heaviness of heart that I find that They apply fully to the Baha'i Faith as
it is currently being mislead by The Universal House of Justice today. It
would be better for The Universal House to change Its name to The
Ununiversal House, for clearly They are leading the people of Baha' away
from God's Universality and imposing a religion of earthly limitations, a
lesser unity, a religion of Their Own making, not of Baha'u'llah's or God's.
I will withdraw from the Baha'i Faith on this understanding and this
understanding alone : that since the Baha'i Faith as it currently exists
meets the requirement of Abdu'l-Baha' of a religion which has become " a
cause of dislike, hatred and division ", that it would be better for me " to
be without it." That " to withdraw from such a religion would be a truly
religious act. "
This is the only basis on which I can withdraw from the Baha'i Faith.
I have seen all that Abdu'l-Baha' has referred to in His Words, which the
above quotes are taken from, reflected in the Baha'i Faith today. The Baha'i
Faith that I joined thirty five years ago has changed, and not for the
better. There was a time when it was a cause of love and unity, I know I
shared in that love and unity. The Universal House of Justice has
"interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician."
"They have imagined their friend an enemy." They have traded that love and
unity for suspicion and disunity.
I mentioned other signs that God has seen fit to share with me, I will now
share one more of them with you.
In this dream I am suspended above the ruins of the buildings of the Arc.
The marble columns and blocks are fallen, strewn awry. Baha'u'llah walks
from out of the distance and stands below me amongst the ruins. He begins to
communicate with me directly from His Mind to mine. As He does I begin to
slowly rise above the ruins. As I rise I begin to accelerate until I am
fully out of the earth's atmosphere and can see the whole planet. What He
communicated to me is, for now, between He and I.
I have seen the fulfillment of that dream in a figurative sense, the
neglect and actions of The Universal House of Justice have brought the Arc
to ruin.
The Baha'i Faith in the current condition in which it exists, because of
The Universal House of Justice's seeking to reinstate former religious
practices which Baha'u'llah Himself removed, in Abdu'l-Baha's Words : " is
no religion."
It spite of these facts and the many confirmations of conscience, sign and
Word, I can not now and will never recant my faith in Baha'u'llah; rather,
those confirmations: Baha'u'llah's Words, my conscience, those signs - the
dream of Baha'u'llah's Taj and His tent, the dream of the Arc in ruins, have
verified for me that what was shown in those signs-dreams has unfortunately,
because of The Universal House of Justice's neglect, already come to pass.
There is a way back though, a way back to God's Universality.
This would require that the Universal House of Justice openly admit, to the
entire community of Baha', It's errors, It's neglect; and for It to take
those steps that are necessary to reverse the damage which has been done to
the Cause through those errors and neglect.
It's errors, in It's treatment of It's coreligionists Alison Marshall and
Michael McKenny. It's neglect, in allowing the natural spectrum of cognitive
styles expressed in the community of Baha', conservative through liberal, to
become an excuse for seeing friends as enemies, for seeing friends as an
"internal opposition", as an excuse for disunity, an excuse for seeing two
where there is only one.
There is one thing that you should all, most clearly, understand. If You
accept my withdrawal on the basis on which that I am offering it I will
still remain a worshiper "of the appearance of the universal Manifestation".
I stand by my belief in the Universal Manifestation of Baha'u'llah, in His
pivotal Teaching of the oneness of humanity, I thus cannot but regard all
people 'as one soul', which of course includes all of you on the Canadian
National Spiritual Assembly, all of you who are members of The Universal
House of Justice, as well as Alison and Michael of course. The division You
have drawn between Yourselves and them is non existent.This false division
is beneath the dignity of Baha'u'llah's Teachings; beneath the manner in
which we should all treat one another, a manner befitting of the truth that
we are all ' as one soul'.
There is a way back for You, it is a sign of God's mercy that It is offered
once again to You, that It is openly offered to us all : " recognize that
their purpose ( Scriptures) is that all men shall be regarded as one soul,
so that the seal bearing the words "The Kingdom shall be God's" may be
stamped on every heart, and the light of Divine bounty, of grace, and mercy
may envelop all mankind.
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 260)
If You fail to avail Yourselves of this mercy the Mantle of the Cause will
pass to others, of this have no doubt whatsoever.
There is only us, we are them, as one soul.
All the best on this fast!
Yours Larry
"Religion should unite all hearts and cause wars and disputes to vanish from
the face of the earth, give birth to spirituality, and bring life and light
to each heart. If religion becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division,
it were better to be without it, and to withdraw from such a religion would
be a truly religious act. For it is clear that the purpose of a remedy is to
cure; but if the remedy should only aggravate the complaint it had better be
left alone. Any religion which is not a cause of love and unity is no
religion. All the holy prophets were as doctors to the soul; they gave
prescriptions for the healing of mankind; thus any remedy that causes
disease does not come from the great and supreme Physician."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 130)
"We can well perceive how the whole human race is encompassed with great,
with incalculable afflictions. We see it languishing on its bed of sickness,
sore-tried and disillusioned. They that are intoxicated by self-conceit have
interposed themselves between it and the Divine and infallible Physician.
Witness how they have entangled all men, themselves included, in the mesh of
their devices. They can neither discover the cause of the disease, nor have
they any knowledge of the remedy. They have conceived the straight to be
crooked, and have imagined their friend an enemy."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 212)
"The seventh angel is a man qualified with heavenly attributes, who will
arise with heavenly qualities and character. Voices will be raised, so that
the appearance of the Divine Manifestation will be proclaimed and diffused.
In the day of the manifestation of the Lord of Hosts, and at the epoch of
the divine cycle of the Omnipotent which is promised and mentioned in all
the books and writings of the Prophets -- in that day of God, the Spiritual
and Divine Kingdom will be established, and the world will be renewed; a new
spirit will be breathed into the body of creation; the season of the divine
spring will come; the clouds of mercy will rain; the sun of reality will
shine; the life-giving breeze will blow; the world of humanity will wear a
new garment; the surface of the earth will be a sublime paradise; mankind
will be educated; wars, disputes, quarrels and malignity will disappear; and
truthfulness, righteousness, peace and the worship of God will appear;
union, love and brotherhood will surround the world; and God will rule for
evermore -- meaning that the Spiritual and Everlasting Kingdom will be
established. Such is the day of God. For all the days which have come and
gone were the days of Abraham, Moses and Christ, or of the other Prophets;
but this day is the day of God, for the Sun of Reality will arise in it with
the utmost warmth and splendor.
"And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell
upon their faces, and worshipped God.
"Saying, We give Thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, Which art, and wast, and
art to come; because Thou hast taken to Thee Thy great power, and hast
reigned."[1] In each cycle the guardians and holy souls have been twelve. So
Jacob had twelve sons; in the time of Moses there were twelve heads or
chiefs of the tribes; in the time of Christ there were twelve Apostles; and
in the time of Muhammad there were twelve Imams. But in this glorious
manifestation there are twenty-four, double the number of all the others,
for the greatness of this manifestation requires it. These holy souls are in
the presence of God seated on their own thrones, meaning that they reign
eternally.
[1 Rev. 11:16-17.]
These twenty-four great persons, though they are seated on the thrones of
everlasting rule, yet are worshipers of the appearance of the universal
Manifestation, and they are humble and submissive, saying, "We give thanks
to Thee, O Lord God Almighty, Which art, and wast, and art to come, because
Thou hast taken to Thee Thy great power and hast reigned" -- that is to say,
Thou wilt issue all Thy teachings, Thou wilt gather all the people of the
earth under Thy shadow, and Thou wilt bring all men under the shadow of one
tent. Although it is the Eternal Kingdom of God, and He always had, and has,
a Kingdom, the Kingdom here means the manifestation of Himself;[1] and He
will issue all the laws and teachings which are the spirit of the world of
humanity and everlasting life. And that universal Manifestation will subdue
the world by spiritual power, not by war and combat; He will do it with
peace and tranquillity, not by the sword and arms; He will establish this
Heavenly Kingdom by true love, and not by the power of war. He will promote
these divine teachings by kindness and righteousness, and not by weapons and
harshness. He will so educate the nations and people that, notwithstanding
their various conditions, their different customs and characters, and their
diverse religions and races, they will, as it is said in the Bible, like the
wolf and the lamb, the leopard, the kid, the sucking child and the serpent,
become comrades, friends and companions. The contentions of races, the
differences of religions, and the barriers between nations will be
completely removed, and all will attain perfect union and reconciliation
under the shadow of the Blessed Tree."
[1 I.e., His most complete manifestation.]
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 56)
wahid...@gmail.com
posts to me.
>...the Baha'i Faith has changed since I signed my card some 35 years
>ago...
I have this same argument with a relative who says the same thing, but
you are both wrong and I can prove it with unassailable historical
documentation. No, the baha'i faith didn't change. What changed was
that the real agenda of baha'ism finally dropped its mask and all
pretenses of being anything other than what it is today: a dangerous
Orwellian cult with theocratic pretensions. Reality is simply in your
face and you refuse to see it for what it really is and move on. In
others words, you are in denial. Pure and simple.
You people especially who signed up in the late 1960s in the West - and
your parents before you as well - were drawn into a cult via a
counter-culture hype and idealism which baha'i powers that be carefully
manipulated well in order to draw you into their cult. Most of you
people had no idea about the ultra-rightwing fascist drivel inside the
aqdas and elsewhere, or paid any attention to the Leninist language and
thrust of Shoghi Effendi entire oeuvre. Instead you were fed a steady
diet of empty platitudes from "gleanings" and carefully whitewashed and
twisted historical lies, such as "God Passes Wind" and Pseudo-Zarandi,
thinking "this is it" and that the sun does indeed shine out of Mirza
Husayn 'Ali Nuri's backside. Reality is far different, would ye but
wake up to it!
>I'm not quite as prepared to believe as you are Nima that it is simply
a
>case of corruption...
I don't say it is simply a cause of corruption. It is way, way beyond
that. The uhj, together with the covenant it claims to represent and
the "wholly" figues it claims to succeed, is tout court illegitimate.
My argument is historically located, and located at the very genesis of
Babism itself. None of you people, including your so called
intellectuals, can address this issue coherently anymore, especially in
light of the wide availability of the translation of the Will and
Testament of Bab. In that respect, I even say Juan Cole is biased these
days.
So you can believe Husayn 'Ali is a universal manifestation all you
like. Unfortunately you and people like you are fast becoming
anachronisms, particularly in light of the huge intellectual reforms
happening inside Christianity and Islam (ergo Muhsin Kadivar and
Montazeri), not to mention the ideas and teachings circulating (whether
from the past or formulated presently) which are many millions of light
years ahead of anything remotely conceived by Husayn 'Ali Nuri
al-Mazandarani. The murdered (by the baha'is) older brother of the
second wife of the Bab, Mulla Rajab Ali Qahir, aptly states in his
response to your "profit's" claims (Kitab-i-Istidlalliyyah or
Kitab-i-Qahir) that He whom God shall make Manifest should, at least,
demonstrate mystical and esoteric teachings far, far beyond those of
the Primal Point's and not just re-hash Sufi ones under the rubric of a
theophanic claim. Anyone who has actually read the Bab himself - and
Taherzadeh does not count - can see immediately that in that domain
Husayn 'Ali Nuri could not even carry the bag containing the Nuqta
Ula's jockstraps, let alone to be manyuzhiruhu'Llah and a universal
manifestation with teachings relevent for the next 1000 years.
Come back to me when you have real arguments and not just re-hashed
platitudes articulated for an ad hoc audience you are playing to.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
Babism itself. None of you people,
Dear Nima,
You have continually put the lie to your belief in the Bab every time
you've denegrated Muhammad and His Quran.
The Bab not only acknowleges Muhammad's legitimacy He acknowledges that His
Religion is the essence of Muhammad's Faith:
'THIS Religion is indeed, in the sight of God, the essence of the Faith of
Muhammad; haste ye then to attain the celestial Paradise and the all-highest
Garden of His good-pleasure in the presence of the One True God, could ye
but be patient and thankful before the evidences of the signs of God."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 71)
Before calling into question the intellects of others perhaps it is time
you gave your own intellect a going over.
How is it that the Bab, who you claim to think so highly of, thought so
highly of Muhammad; when to you Muhammad is a : " a delusional epileptic and
lecherous womanizing unlettered, ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as a
prophet/manifestation of the Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the hell
was this god thinking giving the top job to a complete moron? Anyone
would've made a far better 'prophet' than this lizard eater."
How is it that the Bab clearly says the Quran has been "sent down from God
" and you say it is but the : "contrived drivel of those simpleton and
unsophiticated desert barbarians. "
Me thinks you are not understanding the Bab, me thinks you are not
understanding Muhammad, me thinks you are not understanding Baha'u'llah, I
can see you obviously don't understand me.
Your 'faith' in the Bab is obviously no faith at all but a faith in
yourself, let this faith dissipate and turn your face unto that Face.
The Bab was willing to give His life for the Cause, are you not willing to
give even your self, your ego?
He feared not to speak His Mind and His Heart as to His true feelings and
thoughts about Muhammad. Your lack of regard for Muhammad is a lack of
regard for the Bab.
Your faith in the Bab but a figment.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
"O people of the city! Ye have disbelieved your Lord. If ye are truly
faithful to Muhammad, the Apostle of God and the Seal of the Prophets, and
if ye follow His Book, the Qur'án, which is free from error, then here is
the like of it -- this Book, which We have, in truth and by the leave of
God, sent down unto Our Servant. If ye fail to believe in Him, then your
faith in Muhammad and His Book which was revealed in the past will indeed be
treated as false in the estimation of God. If ye deny Him, the fact of your
having denied Muhammad and His Book will, in very truth and with absolute
certainty, become evident unto yourselves."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 45)
"Thy vision is obscured by the belief that divine revelation ended with the
coming of Muhammad, and unto this We have borne witness in Our first
epistle. Indeed, He Who hath revealed verses unto Muhammad, the Apostle of
God, hath likewise revealed verses unto Ali-Muhammad. For who else but God
can reveal to a man such clear and manifest verses as overpower all the
learned? Since thou hast acknowledged the revelation of Muhammad, the
Apostle of God, then there is no other way open before thee but to testify
that whatever is revealed by the Primal Point hath also proceeded from God,
the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting. Is it not true that the Qur'án hath
been sent down from God and that all men are powerless before its
revelation? Likewise these words have also been revealed by God, if thou
dost but perceive. What is there in the Bayan which keepeth thee back from
recognizing these verses as being sent forth by God, the Inaccessible, the
Most Exalted, the All-Glorious?"
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 31)
Qurra...@id7.com
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
> My argument is historically located, and located at the very genesis
of
> Babism itself. None of you people,
Dear Larry
The true Baha'u'llah and animating Spirit was Tahirih-Qurratu'l-Ayn
which was and is well known in mystical Qurratiyyah-Babism. The living
essence of that knowledge is in the world today. It would seem by
withdrawing from the organization gone from bad to worse you are
freeing yourself to connect to that true Spirit of the Glory of God.
The Tahirih Path celebrates
1. The coming of the cycle of balance and harmony
2. Inner truth balanced with rational proofs
3 The god/ess within the individual
4 Continuous revelation through the individual
5 Empowerment of the individual
6 The uplifting of the female to be a balanced counterpart to the male
7 Wholeness of female and male principles within each individual
8. The upraising of feminine qualities in civilisation
9 The end of force as an operating principle
10 Religion beyond religion and politics beyond politics
11 Being beyond prophet -worship and dogmas of any limiting advice
12 The power of and by the people in the establishment of peace
through magnetic attraction of love
13 Connecting with ones higher self through awareness
14 Knowing through personal gnosis and experience
15 Humanity's advancement scientifically and spiritually
16 Recognising the divine principles of life throughout the Universe
17 Intelligent reproduction for the betterment of planetary
advancement
18 Limitless co-creation
19 Being connected to all that is
20 Being a living essence of Source.
This path needs no formalisation as it follows natural cosmic order.
Qurratu'l-Ayn*
Heather Carr-Rowe
In seeing Baha'u'llah's humanity in perspective, I have seen my own
humanity in perspective. So to with His Divinity.
In seeing Muhammad's, The Bab's, and Tahirhi's humanity in perspective, I
have seen my own humanity in perspective. So to with Their Divinity.
Seeing the humanity of all the Manifestations, Avatars, and Prophets;
seeing Them 'warts and all' doesn't lessen Their Divinity it simply puts It
into perspective. Seeing Their humanity doesn't make me want to cry out, '
lunatics !', frauds '!. It makes me cry out, brothers !, sisters !, friends
!, we are all 'as one soul'.
Nima's and your denegration of Baha'u'llah is beneath your dignity, beneath
your Divinity.
Wakey, wakey, rise and shine.
Yours Larry
star...@yahoo.com
<Seeing the humanity of all the Manifestations, Avatars, and Prophets;
seeing Them 'warts and all' doesn't lessen Their Divinity it simply
puts It
into perspective. Seeing Their humanity doesn't make me want to cry
out, ' lunatics !', frauds '!. It makes me cry out, brothers !, sisters
!, friends !, we are all 'as one soul'. >
Any teaching which detracts the people from recognizing their own
God/ess within through prophet-worship retards the individual and
humanity's evolution as they stay attached to worshipping such
teachings. There is no shame in asking the sisters-brothers to take off
the lens of falsity so the whole can progress. In fact it is the
hero/heoine who says the emperor is naked in this regarad.
Starr*
StarrWisdoms110
Interesting that you have set yourself up as judge.
Any teaching which detracts the people from recognizing their own
God/ess within through prophet-worship retards the individual and
humanity's evolution as they stay attached to worshipping such
teachings. There is no shame in asking the sisters-brothers to take
off
the lens of falsity so the whole can progress. In fact it is the
hero/heoine who says the emperor is naked in this regarad.
For goodness sakes Larry, humanity has been asked to enter into
'maturity', thereby recognizing the God/ess within instead of hanging
on words written ages ago which are suffering mistranslations and time
dated meaning.
Starr*
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote > Dear Starr*
Heather Carr-Rowe
' Interesting that you have set yourself up as judge.'
No need to judge, Nima's words speak quite clearly for themselves.
Making observations about what Nima has said is not to judge what he's
said, it's simply to pointing out the negativity, the darkness, the
ignorance of the actual words that have come out of his mouth.
You're the ones having chosen to give voice to what is obviously seen to be
untrue. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. If you accept that the
Bab's high opinion of Muhammad and the Quran is valid then Nima's
description of Muhammad as :" a delusional epileptic and
lecherous womanizing unlettered, ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as a
prophet/manifestation of the Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the hell
was this god thinking giving the top job to a complete moron? Anyone
would've made a far better 'prophet' than this lizard eater." clearly shows
what his true regard for the Bab and Babism is, nil, nada.
Through Nima's own words he shows that his Babism is nothing but a ploy,
nothing but an excuse to put down Baha'is, to put down Baha'u'llah, to put
down anyone who disagrees with him simply for the sake of the put down. No
spirituality involved, no regard for what the Bab truly believed only a
regard for Nima. How sad.
What a waste of a beautiful mind!
star...@yahoo.com
Baha'u'llah's words many times. In fact you pointed out here on trb
that as time went on his teachings became worse and worse pointing to
the Aqdas as an example. Why start this forked-tongue regime one would
wonder - maybe you are still conflicted - whatever I'll leave that to
you to work out for yourself.
To a better world that works for everyone ----- Starr*
Swiss Heritage
<ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
>
> Through Nima's own words he shows that his Babism is nothing but a ploy,
>nothing but an excuse to put down Baha'is, to put down Baha'u'llah, to put
>down anyone who disagrees with him simply for the sake of the put down.
I don't think that's what it's about at all, Larry.
Jim
Heather Carr-Rowe
You really think Nima is a serious Babi? Come on. Would anyone who was a
serious follower of such an individual as the Bab allow such poisonus venom
as this sort of crap to come out of their mouths:
"even religions/philosophies of China and the Far East for that matter, are
far, far superior than the contrived drivel of those simpleton and
unsophiticated desert barbarians in the wastelands of Sinai, Canaan and
Arabia. I mean, a delusional epileptic and lecherous womanizing unlettered,
ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as a prophet/manifestation of the Ground
of Being! Give me a break! What the hell was this god thinking giving the
top job to a complete moron? Anyone would've made a far better 'prophet'
than this lizard eater."
How would it be possible for a true believer in the Bab to allow such
negativity to be expressed by themselves when the Bab made clear that : "He
Who hath revealed the Qur'án unto Muhammad, the Apostle of God, ordaining in
the Faith of Islam that which was pleasing unto Him, hath likewise revealed
the Bayan,"
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 139)
To denegrate Muhammad is to denegrate the Bab, why would a true believer in
the Bab do so, ask yourself this Jim.
The Bab makes clear with no doubt whatsoever that the same Primal Will
appears in all Manifestations.:
"In the time of the First Manifestation the Primal Will appeared in Adam; in
the day of Noah It became known in Noah; in the day of Abraham in Him; and
so in the day of Moses; the day of Jesus; the day of Muhammad, the Apostle
of God; the day of the 'Point of the Bayan'; the day of Him Whom God shall
make manifest; and the day of the One Who will appear after Him Whom God
shall make manifest. Hence the inner meaning of the words uttered by the
Apostle of God, 'I am all the Prophets', inasmuch as what shineth
resplendent in each one of Them hath been and will ever remain the one and
the same sun."
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 126)
To challange one Manifestation of the Primal Will is to challange Them all.
This, sadly, is Nima's current state of affairs. His motive for his declared
Babism is not a sincere attempt to follow the Bab, but a ploy to give him
the excuse to put down Bahai's and Baha'u'llah.
He is easy to see through, especially considering the way he can only
express himself through putting others down, calling them school yard names.
I truly feel sorry for him. He has burned his friends, he has burned his
bridges and all he is left with is his pseudo Babi Metaphysics. Nothing
whatsoever esoteric about this, his words clearly show what he truly
believes.
What a waste of a beautiful mind!
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Make of Baha'u'llah's Teaching: the truth that we are all 'as one soul'
your mantra for one year Nima and see if it doesn't change your heart, see
if it doesn't lift the dark pall that has fallen over your mind and spirit.
Yours Larry
Who is the man amongst you who can challenge the exalted Thrones of Reality
in every Dispensation, while all existence is wholly dependent upon Them?
(The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 131)
Heather Carr-Rowe
Pointing out that putting the torch to arsonists might not be such a good
idea; pointing out that saying : "Know thou for a certainty that whoso
disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful. This, indeed, is
the truth, the undoubted truth. He that acteth treacherously towards God
will, also, act treacherously towards his king. Nothing whatever can deter
such a man from evil, nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor,
nothing can induce him to walk uprightly." is not only unwise but untrue, is
not to denigrate Baha'u'llah's Person but simply to acknowledge His
humanity. If I have ever been guilty of denegrating Baha'u'llah's Person, I
apologize.
To point out two specific sayings of Baha'u'llah's as being of questionable
value is not the same thing as calling Muhammad : "a delusional epileptic
and lecherous womanizing unlettered, ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as
a prophet/manifestation of the Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the
hell was this god thinking giving the top job to a complete moron? Anyone
would've made a far better 'prophet' than this lizard eater."
We're talking apples and oranges.
Yours Larry
wahid...@gmail.com
>you've denegrated Muhammad and His Quran.
On the contrary it is you baha'i cultists who are the ones who have put
to the lie to the Primal Point everytime you speak of the bogus
manifestation of Husayn 'Ali Nuri. And I have not denegrated Muhammad.
I have spoken fact. Of course I understand full well that in a warped,
one-dimensional cultist mind such as yours it is difficult for you to
understand subtleties of argument.
>The Bab not only acknowleges Muhammad's legitimacy He acknowledges
that His
>Religion is the essence of Muhammad's Faith:
And what that really means esoterically, I don't believe you can
comprehend.
" a delusional epileptic and
lecherous womanizing unlettered, ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as
a
prophet/manifestation of the Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the
hell
was this god thinking giving the top job to a complete moron? Anyone
would've made a far better 'prophet' than this lizard eater."
The same exact words - verbatim - uttered by Shaykh Ahmad Ruhi, btw,
the son-in-law of Subh-i-Azal ;-) Btw, do you mind quoting exactly when
and where I said this? But if it's all the same to you, I guess this is
not so far different than what you said about Mirza Husayn 'Ali Nuri
to me privately about two months ago after I sent you a copy of my
translation of O Creator of creation. I'll find your message and post
here tomorrow.
>Me thinks you are not understanding the Bab, me thinks you are not
>understanding Muhammad, me thinks you are not understanding
Baha'u'llah,
Kindly go sermonize to someone who actually buys into your ridiculous
angle on things. I understand you fully, and I understand the Primal
Point far better than the sanitized, whitewashed nonsense you baha'is
have been taught. I also understand that you are a glaze-eyed cultist.
Philosophically unsophisticated. Temperamentally a hypocrite, i.e. a
baha'i.
> He feared not to speak His Mind and His Heart as to His true
feelings and
>thoughts about Muhammad. Your lack of regard for Muhammad is a lack of
>regard for the Bab.
I think you need to understand the subtle difference between the
Muhammad "represented" by the chronicles of 2nd century Arab cultural
machismo, i.e. hadith and sira; verses the archetypal, Logos-Muhammad
of the mystics and the Bab, which has as much to do with the Muhammad
of Arab history as sulphorous fumes have to lightning. Zip! The
Muhammad of the Bab is not the Muhammad of history, or rather, Arab
historical machismo. The Muhammad of the Bab is the Muhammad of Islamic
Neoplatonism, i.e. a historical figure abstracted and formed to fit a
metaphysical first principle. A silly pietistic, ethically hypocritical
and philosophically unsophisticated glaze-eyed cultist such as you
cannot understand such important distinctions. I have said this stuff
for years.
>Your faith in the Bab but a figment.
Because unlike a sanctimonious pietistic fool and hypocrite like you I
do not come from the limitations of 'faith', but from the pure gnosis
of metaphysical first principles.
<rest of sermonizing and pietistic drivel snipped>
W
p.s. Your private message to me will be going up on TRB tomorrow.
Swiss Heritage
<ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
>This, sadly, is Nima's current state of affairs. His motive for his declared
>Babism is not a sincere attempt to follow the Bab, but a ploy to give him
>the excuse to put down Bahai's and Baha'u'llah.
Has he ever said he was trying to follow the Bab? As I understand it,
to "follow" *anyone*, including the Bab, would be contrary to some
principles he has proclaimed.
I don't claim to know what his motive is. I have some ideas about what
it might be, but I could be wrong.
What you say might be true, as far as it goes. What I meant was that I
see a possibility beyond what you see, which really has nothing to do
with Baha'is and Baha'u'llah at all.
Jim
wahid...@gmail.com
is you these days, Larry. I know you are trying to pander to an
audience, but I think the message you sent me privately last month will
more than adequately show who is more full of shit, viz. you.
<sermonizing snipped>
>Make of Baha'u'llah's Teaching: the truth that we are all 'as one
soul'
>your mantra for one year Nima and see if it doesn't change your heart,
see
>if it doesn't lift the dark pall that has fallen over your mind and
spirit.
More and more with each passing day you sound like a Born Again
Christian, i.e. a fundamentalist. If it's all the same to you, kindly
find me where your "profit" ever said we are one soul. That is a Hindu
and Sufi idea, not a baha'i one. Say Om Shiva for six months and see if
it doesn't lift the darkness of stupidity, hypocrisy and sanctimony
which has fallen over your being.
You will have a leg to stand on the day you people actually respond in
depth to the Will and Testament of the Bab and his letters to Azal, not
to mention the concrete evidence I put in front of you demonstrating
beyond any reasonable doubt that your "profit" was a murderer and
fraud.
W
Abraxas
disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful."
A most dangerous principle to base any civilization on, proving once
again the core fascism of the false prophet of Mazandaran. Who gets to
decide which defintion of "God" is the right one? What does belief have
to do with anything? What difference does it make to the Ground of
Being what notions are held about it at any given time??
" This, indeed, is
the truth, the undoubted truth."
So said the false prophet of Mazandaran who usurped his brother's
right, murdered his supporters and did not bring an iota of what he
claimed to teach.
" He that acteth treacherously towards God.."
Mirza Yahya Nuri was chosen vicar of the Bab. He whom God shall make
Manifest per the Bayan is not supposed to appear for between 1511 to
2001 years after the Bab. The Bayan categorically prohibits the killing
of anyone for religious purposes. Husayn 'Ali Nuri usurped the
vicegerency of Azal, which was not his to take. Husayn 'Ali Nuri
claimed to be He whom God shall make Manifest on no basis whatsoever.
Husayn 'Ali Nuri had those prominent Bayanis who resisted his farce
murdered, ergo Husayn 'Al;i Nuri acted treacherously towards God.
"...will, also, act treacherously towards his king."
Husayn 'Ali Nuri, not 'Azim Turshizi, was the main organizer behind the
plot to kill Nasiruddin Shah in 1852.
" Nothing whatever can deter
such a man from evil..."
As nothing detered Husayn 'Ali Nuri from committing every evil.
> nothing can hinder him from betraying his neighbor,
Husayn 'Ali Nuri betrayed his own brother, let alone neighbor.
Pot, kettle, black! Husayn 'Ali Nuri was guilty of all the above which
he exhorted others against. Therefore, Husayn 'Ali Nuri was a
hypocrite.
W
Heather Carr-Rowe
He professes to believe in and practice 'Babi Metaphysics', Bayanism, the
'esoteric' aspect of the Bab's teachings.
Just how 'esoteric' his practice is can be heard in his words and his
constant use of school yard grammer, toilet talk, as my eleven year old son
who has out grown the practice refers to it.
There's nothing whatsoever 'esoteric' or spiritual about Nima's Bayani-Babi
'metaphysical' practice. There's nothing whatsoever interesting or redeeming
about it either. It just provides him with a soap box to stand on while he
puts down just about everyone and everything else. Just how 'esoteric' is
that? Nada.
Yours Larry
PaulHammond
Heather Carr-Rowe wrote:
>
> There's nothing whatsoever 'esoteric' or spiritual about Nima's
Bayani-Babi
> 'metaphysical' practice. There's nothing whatsoever interesting or
redeeming
> about it either. It just provides him with a soap box to stand on
while he
> puts down just about everyone and everything else. Just how
'esoteric' is
> that? Nada.
>
Exactly right, Larry.
Jim is sincere in his wish to see the best in everybody. I don't know
why - maybe he's just some kind of saint. Star is nothing but a
sycophant, as is Cal, though Cal at least has some kind of agenda
of his own.
Nima is nothing but a big zero right now. That is as clear as
the noonday sun.
Paul
PaulHammond
star...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Larry - Let me remind you that you have openly degenerated
> Baha'u'llah's words many times. In fact you pointed out here on trb
> that as time went on his teachings became worse and worse pointing to
> the Aqdas as an example. Why start this forked-tongue regime one
would
> wonder - maybe you are still conflicted - whatever I'll leave that to
> you to work out for yourself.
>
> To a better world that works for everyone ----- Starr*
>
Just what had Nima got over you that keep you doing this, Moonshite*?
wahid...@gmail.com
backside. Yours and the Marshall's idea of spirituality is a form of
pietistic sanctimonious gunk, which you wrongly call "mysticism." And
for all your protestations to being non-judgmental, you are the most
judgemental cultist prick on these boards. Like I said, you are Maniac
revisited.
What I am is far, far beyond a moron like you to comprehend. Here's
your Soul telling you are full-it.
W
Abraxas
> Baha'u'llah's words many times.
Like I said, Starr, the so called liberals are schizophrenic. Most of
them, like their other cultist friends, are mentally ill. But that
aside, the promises they've been made recently from the power
controllers is too good for them to pass up. They have to put this game
in order to take power again. This is what Larry's sermonizing is all
about.
>In fact you pointed out here on trb
> that as time went on his teachings became worse and worse pointing to
> the Aqdas as an example. Why start this forked-tongue regime
How many times did I point out to you in the past that Larry was not
the real deal? He had a forked-tongue all the way back on Zuhur19. And
anyone who closely associates with the Marshall's can't help but become
further corrupted, as Larry has.
>one
>would
> wonder - maybe you are still conflicted - whatever I'll leave that to
> you to work out for yourself.
It's all about power, Starr. The so called liberals have been promised
it and so they suddenly begin talking more catholic than the pope, i.e.
Larry's sermonizing here. Unfortunately for them the schizophrenic
fractures of their discourse (and the fact that they are conflicted) is
all too clearly apparent. How these people live with their own core
dishonesty and duplicity boggles the mind.
W
B Yatch
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> Nima is nothing but a big zero right now. That is as clear as
> the noonday sun.
Indubitably!
--Sekhmet
star...@yahoo.com
How sad, Sekmet, that you only show up to knife a person when you
**think** they are down. I guess it could be down to reaction-formation
based on the b-yatch conversations a few moons ago.
In Susan's absence you and Paul fit well together - but please practice
birth control bcause the progeny could be something the world doesn't
need or ever wants to see.
PaulHammond" <pahamm...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
Nima is nothing but a big zero right now. That is as clear as
the noonday sun.
Indubitably!
--Sekhmet
Starr*
star...@yahoo.com
It is simple - there is a Second Cycle of Babism and
Qurratiyyah-Babism (Primal Point) operating so as to do The Great Work
in further opening the portal to a paradigm of balance and
enlightenment. The old system goes down as the new one replaces it...a
double process operating at the same time.
star...@yahoo.com
trappings of the patriarchal dark with all its obvious overtones. It is
an attempt to impede humanity from recognizing their own Spirit within.
So it is this ugly dark power vs. empowerment and enlightment of the
human race that this obvious reshuffle is all about. No matter which
way you shake it, it is based on male primogeniture and
in-the-name-of-the-father theological constructs. However, I believe
there is an elite group pulling the strings of these puppets in its
last attempts to preserve an old abusive order.
Starr*
PaulHammond
>
>
> It's all about power, Starr. The so called liberals have been
promised
> it and so they suddenly begin talking more catholic than the pope,
i.e.
> Larry's sermonizing here. Unfortunately for them the schizophrenic
> fractures of their discourse (and the fact that they are conflicted)
is
>
> all too clearly apparent. How these people live with their own core
> dishonesty and duplicity boggles the mind.
You think it's all about power because power is all you think
about and that's what is important to you.
You broke your friendship with Steve over your imaginings that
what was happening was that he was making a powergrab for
"leadership" over the liberals, a position which you saw yourself
filling.
The trouble is, individualistic, "liberal" thinkers don't tend to
follow anyone's orders - whether Steve's, yours or the Baha'i AO's
- the fact that you once saw yourself as a liberal "leader" was
your delusion, not the truth - you thought that being the
listowner of Zuhur gave you some kind of rights to the loyalty
of the people who once found a congenial home there, and you
starting trying to order people around, and fall out with them
for not believing what you believed, or doing what you said - just
as if you were some kind of petty UHJ yourself.
Leadership has always been the big idea for you. The other liberals
just like to have a good conversation with other like-minded people,
and bounce off a few ideas about what's been going on over the years.
They don't actually give each other orders.
Paul
PaulHammond
star...@yahoo.com wrote:
> How sad, Sekmet, that you only show up to knife a person when you
> **think** they are down. I guess it could be down to
reaction-formation
> based on the b-yatch conversations a few moons ago.
>
> In Susan's absence you and Paul fit well together - but please
practice
> birth control bcause the progeny could be something the world doesn't
> need or ever wants to see.
>
>
That being because they might look a bit look you, right Moonshine*?
For a supposedly "spiritual" She-god you do seem rather attached to
incidentals like physical good looks...
Tell me something, are you suggesting that I would be the
replacement for Susan in this scenario you propose, or are
you suggesting that I was fucking Susan before, so I wouldn't
notice should Sekhmet start sharing my bed instead?
Palu*
B Yatch
"PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> star...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > How sad, Sekmet, that you only show up to knife a person when you
> > **think** they are down. I guess it could be down to
> reaction-formation
> > based on the b-yatch conversations a few moons ago.
Yes, I'm embracing my inner beeyatch-- and why not, since our local
Infestation of doG has named me so?
> > In Susan's absence you and Paul fit well together - but please
> practice
> > birth control bcause the progeny could be something the world doesn't
> > need or ever wants to see.
> >
> >
>
> That being because they might look a bit look you, right Moonshine*?
>
> For a supposedly "spiritual" She-god you do seem rather attached to
> incidentals like physical good looks...
>
> Tell me something, are you suggesting that I would be the
> replacement for Susan in this scenario you propose, or are
> you suggesting that I was fucking Susan before, so I wouldn't
> notice should Sekhmet start sharing my bed instead?
As if you'd be sharing your bed with a "can't-get-a-man heifer" and/or a
"dike" [sic], right? ;-)
--Sekhmet
wahid...@gmail.com
>Infestation of doG has named me so?
Don't forget, I also called you a c-u-n-t ;-)
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>about and that's what is important to you.
Projection. What is important to me is integrity, which you people
never had, nor know what it is since you confuse sleaze with ethics.
>You broke your friendship with Steve over your imaginings that
>what was happening was that he was making a powergrab for
>"leadership" over the liberals,
And time has proven me right.
>a position which you saw yourself
>filling.
Nope. I didn't need to go for anything because I was already there. In
fact it was I who brought Steve and Alison into the inner circle of
Juan etc.Hey stephanie, who told Juan to bring your pathetic self and
Alison into grok??
>The trouble is, individualistic, "liberal" thinkers don't tend to
>follow anyone's orders
Except where promises of power and money is concerned. Yes, it is
pretty obvious how individualistic and liberal these people are. Waft
some money and promises of power over their nose and they all go weak
at the knees, just like your pathetic cockroach self.
<cockroach drivel snipped>
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>you suggesting that I was fucking Susan before,
I think it is pretty obvious that where you are concerned Susan was on
top.
W
star...@yahoo.com
B Yatch wrote:
> In article <1113128347.8...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "PaulHammond" <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
>
> > star...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > How sad, Sekmet, that you only show up to knife a person when you
> > > **think** they are down. I guess it could be down to
> > reaction-formation
> > > based on the b-yatch conversations a few moons ago.
>
> Yes, I'm embracing my inner beeyatch-- and why not, since our local
> Infestation of doG has named me so?
>
> > > In Susan's absence you and Paul fit well together - but please
> > practice
> > > birth control bcause the progeny could be something the world
doesn't
> > > need or ever wants to see.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That being because they might look a bit look you, right
Moonshine*?
> >
> > For a supposedly "spiritual" She-god you do seem rather attached to
> > incidentals like physical good looks...
Like Qurratu'l-Ayn (solace of the eyes) she was reported to have a
beautiful moon shaped face - it is just something natural reflecting
the inner state...and requires no attachment.
> >
> > Tell me something, are you suggesting that I would be the
> > replacement for Susan in this scenario you propose, or are
> > you suggesting that I was fucking Susan before, so I wouldn't
> > notice should Sekhmet start sharing my bed instead?
Two AO's laying in bed, one rolled over to the other and said -
Listerine will clean your hole mouth and everything that's in
it....doesn't matter whether it is Susan or Skhmet...it's still under
hill juresprudence.
>
> As if you'd be sharing your bed with a "can't-get-a-man heifer"
and/or a
> "dike" [sic], right? ;-)
Oh my Sekhmet's shadow side is really showing. Not really putting too
much thought to the above categories I would however say that if
getting a man and or dyke means palu-types - he's all yours and I'm not
at all interested. Enjoy!
Starr*
Sekhmet
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, I recall that (and I note that you still can't use the word without
an asterisk or other "disguiser"; whassamatta, you afraid mine has
teeth?), but I felt it would bore the audience (and use up way too much
bandwidth) if I were to repeat the entire list of stupidass
gender-obsessed ad homs you fling up every time you lose an argument.
--Sekhmet, Beeyatch Extraordinaire
wahid...@gmail.com
>teeth?)
I ain't afraid. I know yours have teeth. That's why I am here to kick
those teeth out ;-)
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh! Oh! Another empty threat from Nima the No-Show! Au secours! Sauvez
moi!
--Sekhmet
wahid...@gmail.com
That's funny. You guys are always the No-Shows and then to cover your
backsides you cowardly accuse others who show of being no-shows, like
palu the cockcroach. Pathetic! Btw, I've already kicked your twat with
teeth many a time right here on TRB.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> ps. you are wearing dentures at this point...
Only in your wet dreams, honeybunch!
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
All documentation on the subject shows precisely the opposite to be the
case. Thanks for playing, though!
--Sekhmet
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You think it's all about power because power is all you think
> >about and that's what is important to you.
>
> Projection.
Yes. You're exactly right, Nima.
Remember, admitting to a problem is the first step to solving it...
Paul
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> >You broke your friendship with Steve over your imaginings that
> >what was happening was that he was making a powergrab for
> >"leadership" over the liberals,
>
>
> >a position which you saw yourself
> >filling.
>
> Nope. I didn't need to go for anything because I was already there.
Yes, that's what I was saying. pay attention, lad, I heard you
were meant to be smart.
Now, listen carefully - the heart of my last message to you
was here - you *did* see yourself filling this position, because
you thought that the creation of a group like Zuhur was a
leadership position for you already.
BUT, the trouble is that liberals do not do "orders" and "leaders"
like that. That is the source of your delusions.
Paul
PaulHammond
You started it, Moonshite*
PaulHammond
Not an accusation. A fact. Whaddya want, a photocopy of the
Tap timesheet from that day? I'm pretty sure it will have been
binned by now - January was a few months ago now, after all - but
if you'd really like to check whether I was at work that Sunday
where I said I would be, you could always phone them on
01733 358500. Probably best not to do that on Friday or
Saturday night though, it gets quite loud in there of a weekend
and Jess might not be able to hear you very well. But tell her
Hammo says hi when you call.
Paul
star...@yahoo.com
Sekmet -
Why don't you come to the Gold Coast and meet Wahid? We can have a
conclave to meet you and do the judging. We can start contributing to a
fund towards your arrival. Don't forget the dentures, however.
Looking forward to the meeting, he might even propose marriage after
he's whipped you into shape.
Starr*
wahid...@gmail.com
the
>case.
Au contraire. I have kicked your and your friend's butts' from here to
kingdom come several times over, toothless hag ;-)
W
wahid...@gmail.com
Good. We're making progress, then. You have admitted it is your
projection of the issue.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>you thought that the creation of a group like Zuhur was a
>leadership position for you already.
Interesting. The ao-holes were saying the *exact* same thing, proving
again you are one of them, but it doesn't make it any less bogus an
argument. Zuhur was created specifically for Alison because she was
complaining at the time about the fundie tone of t9 after her
expulsion. I even offered to hand over the list to her, several times.
But don't let a little ao-hole obfuscation and fantasy get in the way
of your big lie, cockroach.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
That you wussed out, most definitely!
W
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
Only in your fantasies!
wahid...@gmail.com
Au contraire, only in *reality*!
I tell you what, per Starr's recommendation, I'll let you marry me. But
there are a few pre-nubtial conditions: a) you must wear a
chador...no...burqa for the rest of your life during our marriage, b)
you must walk behind me for the duration of the marriage, and c) you
must speak only when spoken to ;-)
W
PaulHammond
wahid...@gmail.com
Get some *real* wit and subtlety, palu.
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
Fantasizing again, eh?
I have no interest in marrying a misogynistic little twit under _any_
conditions, and it surprises me that Ms. I-Am-Woman-Hear-Me-Roar-Starr*
would recommend it for anyone.
PaulHammond
Yes, it's a fact that when you said you'd be in the
country, I said "I'll be at work all afternoon - come and
see me there".
And I did indeed go to work that day. And you were
indeed a no show.
Like I say, if you don't believe me, phone up the Tap
and ask them.
You wussed out, Nima, you're a big yellow chicken.
Have you got that yet?
palu, the undefeated champion of trb
PaulHammond
Why would I bother to waste it on you?
star...@yahoo.com
The experience would be good for you.
Braindead women who champion a system that oppresses women are already
mentally veiled...so why not put the full hijjab on them so they can be
identified by outward appearances for what they are on the inside. It
saves time. Mind you it is a sacrifice of Wahid to get them grouped. I
hope, for his sake, he puts a clause in the prenuptials that gives him
an out if ever the veil was to slip and he saw what is under the veil.
Just think, like Catholic nuns, this is your chance to be married to
God.
Looking forward to the ceremony.
Starr*
All_Bad
star...@yahoo.com wrote:
> B Yatch wrote:
>
>>In article <1113296884....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
>> wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Au contraire, only in *reality*!
>>>
>>>I tell you what, per Starr's recommendation, I'll let you marry me.
>
> But
>
>>>there are a few pre-nubtial conditions: a) you must wear a
>>>chador...no...burqa for the rest of your life during our marriage,
>
> b)
>
>>>you must walk behind me for the duration of the marriage, and c)
>
> you
>
>>>must speak only when spoken to ;-)
>>
>>Fantasizing again, eh?
>>I have no interest in marrying a misogynistic little twit under _any_
>
>
>>conditions, and it surprises me that Ms.
>
> I-Am-Woman-Hear-Me-Roar-Starr*
>
>>would recommend it for anyone.
>
>
> The experience would be good for you.
>
> Braindead women who champion a system that oppresses women are already
> mentally veiled...so why not put the full hijjab on them so they can be
> identified by outward appearances for what they are on the inside.
But if you wear the hijjab, as you suggest, why were you photographed
w/o it for the internet?
- Mr. All Bad
> It
> saves time. Mind you it is a sacrifice of Wahid to get them grouped. I
> hope, for his sake, he puts a clause in the prenuptials that gives him
> an out if ever the veil was to slip and he saw what is under the veil.
>
> Just think, like Catholic nuns, this is your chance to be married to
> God.
Like them, you are decieved.
wahid...@gmail.com
>Fantasizing again, eh?
You are?
>I have no interest in marrying a misogynistic little twit
Me a mysogynist, while you swear fealty to the "infallibility" of an
elite patriarchal power-structure that won't even allow you, a woman,
to serve on its body?! LOL!! Sista, it is obvious you got it all wrong.
You is the mysogynist and collaborator to the man.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>country, I said "I'll be at work all afternoon
And then you disappeared into thin air, obviously scared out of your
wussy limey wits.
wahid...@gmail.com
That is provided you even had any, which you obviously don't, limey
cockroach.
wahid...@gmail.com
>hope, for his sake, he puts a clause in the prenuptials that gives him
>an out if ever the veil was to slip and he saw what is under the veil.
She's already put up a picture of herself a few times. We know what
Beast lurks behind that veil, and it ain't pretty.
W
Sekhmet
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> Me a mysogynist,
Yes. Your hatred for women shines like a beacon every time you use a
gender-based insult on a female with whom you disagree, or refer to Paul
or Steve and/or any other male in the feminine in order to put them down
(of course in those cases your homophobia shines as well, but that's
another issue).
And if Starr walked the walk according to her professed principles she'd
call you on it too, instead of getting on my case in your defense.
--Sekhmet
star...@yahoo.com
she'd call you on it too, instead of getting on my case in your
defense.
Sekhmet - Actually I noticed that Wahid does not discriminate gender
wise when throwing around his explicatives. I do think he made a
mistake in calling you a cunt (female vagina) when penis would have
been more appropriate since you think more like the men who want to
hold women in servitude. When people don't use common sense and
conscious thought they are often described by thier sexual organs -
implying their sexual organs do the thinking rather than their brains.
I think in this instance Wahid explained the situation clearly:
Me a mysogynist, while you swear fealty to the "infallibility" of an
elite patriarchal power-structure that won't even allow you, a woman,
to serve on its body?! LOL!! Sista, it is obvious you got it all wrong.
You is the mysogynist and collaborator to the man.
And Sekhmet - give me credit for getting you a marriage offer from
someone you obviously care about.
Starr*
Heather Carr-Rowe
disbelieveth in God is neither trustworthy nor truthful."
' A most dangerous principle to base any civilization on, proving once
again the core fascism of the false prophet of Mazandaran. Who gets to
decide which defintion of "God" is the right one? What does belief have
to do with anything? What difference does it make to the Ground of
Being what notions are held about it at any given time?? '
Dear Wahid,
I agree that the drawing of such lines is dangerous: those who believe in
God according to my definition vs. everyone else.
It is this very excuse Elijah used to justify the mass murder of 450
prohets of Baal on Mount Carmel. It is this very excuse that has been used
by Jews, Christians, and Muslims to justify the slaughter of thousands, of
millions of innocents.
Does this fact negate the legitmacy of the spiritual experiences of all
Jews, Christians and Muslims? Of course not.
What it clearly shows is that 'religion' can become more of a bane than a
boon.
Religion becomes a bane when it becomes a possession, a property, simply
one more thing to be territorial about. Animal instincts click in and the
most heinous things are then done in the name of 'religion', in the name of
'God'.
Baha'is have blood on their hands as well for the very same reason. Because
their 'religion' became a possession, a property to be defended using
whatever means available, even murder:
"It is a fact that three Azalis were murdered by a few Bahá'ís in 'Akká.
That shameful deed brought great sorrow to Bahá'u'lláh, added to the rigours
of His incarceration and evoked poignant lamentation from His pen. He wrote:
'My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct of those
who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what causeth
My heart and My pen to groan.'[1]
[1 The epithet, 'Antichrist of the Bahá'í Revelation', was applied by the
Guardian of the Faith to Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani. An incident which
should be particularly noted is his marriage to the sister of Mulla
Rajab-'Ali, entitled Qahir, one of the Bábís whose murder in 'Iraq the
author of Hasht Bihisht imputed to the Bahá'ís. Edward Browne seems
convinced that Bahá'ís were guilty of that murder. He stated it as a fact in
his Materials for the Study of the Bábí Religion (p. 199), a book which we
shall consider later. In the same work he even names the murderer: 'Nasir
the 'Arab, one of the followers of Bahá'u'lláh' (p. 220)."
(H.M. Balyuzi, E.G. Browne and The Baha'i Faith, p. 34)
"Then occurred a shameful and horrendous, but inevitable, event which
outwardly justified Ilyas 'Abbud's worst fears. This was the murder of three
Azalis at the hands of seven Bahá'ís, an appalling incident which added
immeasurably to the rigours and burdens of Bahá'u'lláh's life, and wrung
from His heart the cry:
My captivity cannot harm Me. That which can harm Me is the conduct
of those who love Me, who claim to be related to Me, and yet perpetrate what
causeth My heart and My pen to groan. . . . My captivity can bring on Me no
shame. Nay, by My life, it conferreth on Me glory. That which can make Me
ashamed is the conduct of such of My followers as profess to love Me, yet in
fact follow the Evil One."
(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 317)
So Baha'is 'officially' admit that at least three Azali's were murdered in
Akka, and one in Baghdad. From what your saying Nima there were several more
Azali's murdered by Baha'is.
Even one murder is too many. Especially when 'religion' is the excuse being
used.
It is clear from the account given that Baha'u'llah was well aware of the
plans: "to eliminate Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani and his associates."
It is your's and Bayani's contention that He was not only aware of those
plans but that He O.K.ed them.
It would interesting to have been a fly on the wall at that meeting and to
know exactly what transpired. Thing is there are always two sides to such
stories, two sides to such accounts of what actually occurred. Especially
when such things as murder are involved.
If Baha'u'llah were to be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and if
such a case were to go to trial, would He be convicted? On the basis of the
evidence that I've seen so far I would have to say no.
Still at least four Alazis were murdered by Baha'i for 'religious' reasons,
which is inexcusable.
What causes religionists to go too such extremes? A fundamentalistic
mindset which finds excuses for such behaviour within their 'religious'
beliefs and faith. The same can be said for all negative behaviors of over
zealous, fanatic, fundamentalist religionists.
If we look back at the history of the Abrahamic Faiths there are many
accounts of the brutality that those religionists meted out to those who did
not share their 'religion'. Elijah's mass murder of 450 prophets of Baal on
Mount Carmel itself, the murder of all the Jewish inhabitants, men women and
children, in a town in Arabia by Muslims at Muhammad's bidding. The
slaughter of tens of thousands at the hands of 'Christian' Catholics during
the inquisition. The murder of Azali's by Bahai's. The list goes on, and on
... .
What causes such fanaticism?
Territoriality causes such fanaticism. That animal instinct we have yet to
fully outgrow as a kind.
'Religious' territoriality also causes other forms of extremism besides
murder. The attempt by Christians in Canada to wipe out First Nations
religion and culture through forced assimilation is one such example. First
Nations children were forcibly removed from their families and put into
residential schools. They were forbidden to speak their native languages,
forbidden to practice their own religions and were indoctrinated into
Christianity. It is a little know fact but until the 1960's first Nations
peoples in Canada were prohibited by law from practicing their own religious
beliefs. As a Canadian I am deeply ashamed of this dark history. First
Nations peoples are still suffering the consequences of this Christian
'religious' and cultural fanaticism and will for generations to come.
I heard a startling fact the other day. If you were to gauge Canada's
standard of living in the world by using the experience of First Nations
people, we would be number 48 on the list, instead of the top 5, like a
third world country!
This is all the result of 'religious' territorial thinking.
Baha'is would like to believe they are free from such negative aspects of
'religion' but they are far from being free of it.
The Baha'i Faith is rife with examples of 'religious' triumphalism, rife
with examples of such 'religious' territorial thinking. Just peruse a few
Ruhi books, a few messages to the world from The Universal House of Justice
to see many clear examples of such over zealous, territorial, 'religious'
thinking.
There are safeguards in the Baha'i teachings which should prevent such
'religious' territoriality but they have been conveniently ignored up until
now.
One reason for this ignorance is that Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha'
Themselves failed to fully live up to the universal aspect of Their Own
Teachings.
The contradiction between Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's universal
teaching of the oneness of humanity as expressed in the following quotes and
Their repeated warnings to shun certain individuals is as clear as the sun
at high noon.
"Whatsoever hath led the children of men to shun one another, and hath
caused dissensions and divisions amongst them, hath, through the revelation
of these words, been nullified and abolished."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 94)
"O ye beloved of the Lord! In this sacred Dispensation, conflict and
contention are in no wise permitted. Every aggressor deprives himself of
God's grace. It is incumbent upon everyone to show the utmost love,
rectitude of conduct, straightforwardness and sincere kindliness unto all
the peoples and kindreds of the world, be they friends or strangers. So
intense must be the spirit of love and loving-kindness, that the stranger
may find himself a friend, the enemy a true brother, no difference
whatsoever existing between them. For universality is of God and all
limitations earthly. Thus man must strive that his reality may manifest
virtues and perfections, the light whereof may shine upon everyone. The
light of the sun shineth upon all the world and the merciful showers of
Divine Providence fall upon all peoples. The vivifying breeze reviveth every
living creature and all beings endued with life obtain their share and
portion at His heavenly board. In like manner, the affections and
loving-kindness of the servants of the One True God must be bountifully and
universally extended to all mankind. Regarding this, restrictions and
limitations are in no wise permitted."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 445)
The thing is if you choose to ignore the universal aspect of the oneness of
humanity and selectively shun certain people, you are effectively abandoning
that universality, you are effectively putting the lie to your own professed
belief in this 'pivotal' principle of the oneness of humanity.
If Abdu'l-Baha' truly believed what He taught in the following why wasn't
he able to put this teaching into practice in His own life? :
" In like manner, the affections and loving-kindness of the servants of the
One True God must be bountifully and universally extended to all mankind.
Regarding this, restrictions and limitations are in no wise permitted."
If there are no restrictions or limitations permitted why did Baha'u'llah,
Abdu'l-Baha', and Shoghi Effendi all practice and council clearly defined
restrictions and limitations to the universal teaching of the oneness of
humanity?
The answer can be found in this one line : "universality is of God, all
limitations earthly "
Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi were all bound by the earthly
limitations of their shared humanity. This is why they all failed to
practice what they preached, this is why ' shun no man ' came out one side
of their mouths and 'shun these men' came out the other.
So they were human. Does this fact negate the legitimacy of their human
spiritual experience and the expression they gave it? I emphatically say :"
no it doesn't negate that legitimacy! ".
It is my belief that their failure reflects our failure. Our failure as a
kind to make of our human spiritualities, our human spiritual experiences,
our 'religions' a way of life instead of empty words.
There is more than enough of such 'religion' in the world today and far too
much religiosity.
Although Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha' were both well aware of the negative
aspects of 'religion', which is clear from Their Writings, They were both
unable to put this awareness into practice. They were limited by their
territoriality, a trait that we are most obviously far from outgrowing as a
kind.
This does not negate the legitimacy of all Their Teachings though.
Ironically even if we were to master one teaching of Baha'u'llah's, the
principle teaching of the oneness of humanity, and truly regard all people "
as one soul " we will have surpassed the Teachers, in that They Themselves
failed to fully exemplify this Teaching in Their Own lives.
Do I look down on Baha'u'llah, Abdul'-Baha', Shoghi Effendi and The
Universal House of Justice for failing to put into practice this one simple
teaching? No, how can I look down on them when they are all my brothers,
when they are all 'as one soul' with me, when I myself have struggled and
continue to struggle to live by this one teaching myself.
Time doesn't stand still we continue to progress as a kind.
Because progress in science, logic and reason is not static but dynamic,
the point at which religion and reason meet is dynamic as well. As we
progress this point moves forward, or at least it should.
It we fail to move forward our religion becomes one-winged as Abdu'l-Baha'
points out.
What Abdu'l-Baha' is says makes pre-eminent sense to me. In order for
humanity to fly it is necessary that we fly with both wings, which is to
say, as we progress we need to allow those beliefs which are based on myth
and metaphor to fall away and be updated by logical reason and science. If
we resist this process our 'religion' becomes nothing more than
superstition.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul'.
Yours Larry
"It was then that some of the followers of Bahá'u'lláh began to think of
putting an end to these activities. Apart from Aqa Husayn and Aqa Rida,
whose accounts have frequently been referred to previously, our sources for
this dire episode include two historical tracts, one by Mirza Aqa Jan, the
amanuensis of Bahá'u'lláh, and the other by Aqa Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini.
Both men were eye-witnesses and both broke the Covenant of Bahá'u'lláh after
His ascension.
An Arab believer named Nasir, who was also known as Haji 'Abbas, came to
'Akká from Beirut determined to silence the mischief-makers. In all
probability, he was the same Nasir who was implicated in the murder of Haji
Mirza Ahmad-i-Kashani, in Baghdad.[1] Once in 'Akká, his purpose was made
clear, and not only would Bahá'u'lláh not countenance it, but He promptly
ordered him to return to Beirut, which he did. Muhammad-Javad quotes a
Tablet addressed to Nasir, which caused his return. The following is
Professor Browne's translation of that Tablet:
[1 According to Nabil's Narrative, among the Companions of Tahirih as she
travelled from Baghdad towards Persia was a certain 'Abid and his son Nasir,
who later was known as Haji 'Abbas. If this Nasir is the same man, and there
seems little reason to doubt it, then his later actions would seem to
reflect something of the fervour and impetuosity of those who surrounded
that far-famed Bábí heroine.]
HE is the Helper.
I bear witness that thou hast helped thy Lord, and art one of the helpers.
To [the truth of] my testimony all things testify: this indeed is
the root of the matter, if thou art of those who know. What thou dost by His
command and approval is indeed the duty of help in the sight of thy
Lord the All-knowing and All-understanding. Go hence and do not perpetrate
that wherefrom mischief will result! Put thy trust in God: verily He will
take whomsoever He will: verily He hath power over all things. Verily we
have accepted what thou didst intend in the Way of God. Return to thy place:
then commemorate thy Lord, the Mighty, the Praiseworthy.4
After Nasir's departure, some of the companions, finding this highly-charged
situation intolerable, went to Bahá'u'lláh to beg His permission to deal
with the authors of mischief in their own way and bring their satanic
activities to an end. Bahá'u'lláh, however, not only would not grant them
the permission they sought, but counselled them most emphatically to shun
all violence and retaliation. It seems that Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini,
himself; was at first in league with those men, but withdrew from their
company when bidden to do so by Bahá'u'lláh. Muhammad-Javad relates that he
was present, when Aqa Muhammad-Ibrahim-i-Kashani was pleading with
Bahá'u'lláh for permission to eliminate Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani and his
associates. Bahá'u'lláh directed Muhammad-Javad to go home and stay there,
and commanded Mirza Muhammad-Quli, His brother, to eject Aqa
Muhammad-Ibrahim from His presence, which he did.
Seven of the companions, Aqa Muhammad-Ibrahim-i-Nazir, Mirza Husayn-i-Najjar
(another native of Kashan), Aqa Husayn-i-Ashchi (also of Kashan), Mirza
Ja'far of Yazd, Ustad Ahmad-i-Najjar, Aqa Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Salmani and Ustad
'Abdu'l-Karim-i-Kharrat, both of Isfahan, chose to disregard Bahá'u'lláh's
strong injunction and began plotting to rid 'Akká and the exiles of the
incubus of those evil men. There was such commotion afoot throughout the
whole community that Bahá'u'lláh secluded Himself from all. He did what He
had done in Adrianople at the time the rebellion of Mirza Yahya was about to
come into the open, receiving no one, meeting no one.
Despite all this, these seven men persisted in their plans and committed
those foul murders. Thus died Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani, the Antichrist of
the Bahá'í Revelation; the irredeemable Aqa Jan-i-Kaj-Kulah, the right-hand
man of Siyyid Muhammad from the days of Adrianople; and the fickle Mirza
Rida-Quliy-i-Tafrishi.
Let it be said at once that nothing condones murder. But the pressures to
which the Bahá'ís were subjected can be measured by the fact that one of the
seven men who murdered the Azalis was Aqa 326 Husayn-i-Ashchi, whose
recollections we have often quoted in these pages. Aqa Husayn, it is true,
was headstrong and self-willed, even standing up to the highest among the
authorities. But he had grown up in the household of Bahá'u'lláh from the
early days in Baghdad, and his devotion was total and hard to match. Yet at
this juncture he succumbed to the pressures inflicted on the Bahá'ís by
their adversaries.
As it happened, the three Azalis were lodged in a house fronting the Seraye.
The sound of pistol shots, and of shouts and yelling, brought Salih Pasha,
the Mutasarrif, from his house. And then pandemonium broke out. Aqa Rida
writes: 'All, young and old, notables and humble folk, the Governor, the
Chief of Police, and troops rose up, as if a powerful state had made an
attack on them. Armed with stones and sticks, swords and rifles, they set
out towards the house of the Blessed Perfection and the houses of the
companions, arresting whomever they met. The Mutasarrif and his retinue and
troops gathered around the house of the Blessed Perfection. It was now late
in the afternoon . . .'
As was His custom at this time of day, Bahá'u'lláh was absorbed in the
revelation of verses: 'Verily, the sea of calamity hath surged, and gales
have overtaken the Ark of God, the All-Encompassing, the Self-Subsistent. O
Mariner! Be not daunted by gales, for He Who is the Breaker of Dawns is with
Thee in this darkness which hath enveloped the worlds'.5
It was an hour after sunset that an army officer, an official whom
Muhammad-Javad names as Sa'id Big, and Ilyas 'Abbud came into the biruni. Th
e Most Great Branch, Aqa Muhammad-'Aliy-i-Isfahani, Husayn-Aqay-i-Tabrizi
and Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini were there. They were asked by the officials to
accompany them to the Seraye. Then they requested that Bahá'u'lláh should
come as well. The Most Great Branch went into the inner quarters and
presented their request to Bahá'u'lláh. He came out of the house, and, as it
was quite dark, a man led the way with a lantern.
Aqa Rida tells us that all who encountered Him on that walk to the
Government House marvelled at the power emanating from His person. One of
the inhabitants of 'Akká, who saw Him on that day, instantly came to believe
in Him and joined the ranks of the companions. 327
The Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith writes:
The consternation that seized an already oppressed community was
indescribable. Bahá'u'lláh's indignation knew no bounds. 'Were
We,' He thus voices His emotions, in a Tablet revealed shortly after this
act had been committed, 'to make mention of what befell Us, the
heavens would be rent asunder and the mountains would crumble.'6
When Bahá'u'lláh entered the Seraye, Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini writes, Salih
Pasha, the Mutasarrif, Salim Mulki, the head of the secretariat, and other
officials present stood up before Him. Bahá'u'lláh walked in and took a seat
at the top end of the room. There was utter silence until, at last, the
commandant of the garrison spoke: 'Is it meet that your men should commit
such a heinous deed?' To which Bahá'u'lláh replied: 'Should a soldier under
your command break a rule, would you be held responsible and punished for
it?' Again there was total silence until Bahá'u'lláh rose up, according to
Aqa Rida, and went into another room.
Then, officials went in search of other companions. Mirza Muhammad-Quli,
Mirza Muhammad-'Ali, the second surviving son of Bahá'u'lláh, and Mirza Aqa
Jan were brought in. But since Aqay-i-Kalim was indisposed they let him be.
Throughout that night, Muhammad-Javad-i-Qazvini writes, the whole town was
in great commotion. That same night a Russian steamer cast anchor before
'Akká, and immediately officials banned all entry to or exit from that ship.
Four hours after sunset, they took Bahá'u'lláh away from the office of the
Mutasarrif and lodged him, together with His son, Mirza Muhammad-'Ali, in a
room in Khan-i-Shavirdi, while the Most Great Branch was led to the Liman
(prison), and Aqa Mirza Muhammad-Quli was taken elsewhere. Mirza Aqa Jan was
allowed to go home and bring all that Bahá'u'lláh required for the night.
Then he was placed with a number of other companions in the gaol of the
Seraye. The Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith writes of these events:
Bahá'u'lláh was . . . kept in custody the first night, with one
of His sons, in a chamber in the Khan-i-Shavirdi,[1] transferred for
the following two 328
nights to better quarters in that neighbourhood, and allowed only thrown
after the lapse of seventy hours to regain His home. 'Abdu'l-Bahá was
into prison and chained during the first night, after which He was
permitted to join His Father. Twenty-five of the companions were cast
into another prison and shackled . . .7
[1 Khan-i-Shavirdi is one of the caravanserais of 'Akká. Its date of
construction is uncertain but it was probably built by al-Jazzar or Sulayman
Pasha. In its south-eastern corner is the Burju's-Sultan, the only one still
standing of the numerous Crusader towers that once surrounded 'Akká. The
eastern wing of this khan is adjacent to the Liman and was used as an
extension of it. Thus this is probably where Bahá'u'lláh and His son were
imprisoned.]
Aqa Rida relates the case of Haji 'Ali-'Askar, the same devoted soul who, at
Adrianople, voluntarily accepted banishment to 'Akká and incarceration
there. This veteran of the Faith had come face to face with the Báb, decades
before, and had readily espoused His Cause. Now, not having been out of his
house that day, he had not been arrested and taken away. But being informed
of the detention of his fellow believers, he could not rest that night, and
at dawn hurried to the Seraye and knocked at the gate. Although told to go
away and not make a nuisance of himself, he continued to knock, insisting
that he should share their fate. He would not hold his peace until he was
pushed into prison with the rest of the companions. Aqa Rida also states
that Mirza Muhammad-Quli was detained in the same room with Bahá'u'lláh.
Finally, the Mutasarrif cabled all that had occurred to Subhi 329
Pasha,[1] the Vali of Syria, who took exception at once to the way
Bahá'u'lláh had been treated and reprimanded the Mutasarrif. The next day,
He was moved to the rooms above the Liman. In the afternoon of the third
day, Muhammad-Javad writes, Bahá'u'lláh, the Most Great Branch, Mirza
Muhammad-'Ali and Mirza Muhammad-Quli were led once again to the office of
the Mutasarrif. Bahá'u'lláh had a slight fever that day, and when He told
the Mutasarrif and the Mufti that they had not acted according to the edicts
of God, the Mutasarrif informed Him that He was free to return home; as He
rose to go, they all stood up and humbly apologized for their high-handed
behaviour. Then He and the Most Great Branch, as well as Mirza
Muhammad-'Ali, Mirza Muhammad-Quli and Mirza Aqa Jan, walked home."
[1 According to British consular records, Subhi Pasha arrived in Damascus 27
October 1871 to take up duties as Governor-General; he remained Governor
until January 1873. (FO 195 976 and 1027)]
(H.M. Balyuzi, Baha'u'llah - The King of Glory, p. 323)
PaulHammond
Erm, I WAS at work all that afternoon, just like I said I would
be, you no-show cluck, cluck, chicken.
Heather Carr-Rowe
Dear Nima,
Subtle. Lol! You are about the least subtle person I know of on line Nima,
lol!
The following from you is about as subtle as a turd on a hot plate:
, far superior than the contrived drivel of those simpleton and
unsophiticated desert barbarians in the wastelands of Sinai, Canaan and
Arabia. I mean, a delusional epileptic and lecherous womanizing unlettered,
ignorant Hijazi Arab camel merchant as a prophet /manifestation of the
Ground of Being! Give me a break! What the hell was this god thinking giving
the top job to a complete moron? Anyone would've made a far better 'prophet'
than this lizard eater."
This is just so esoteric Nima, I am completely wowed by the depth of your
insight, lol.
Here's source of the quote from you, its from TRB:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/0de4db59dacbb924
wahid...@gmail.com
came, coward.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>Subtle.
Indeed. Of course one cannot expect shallow minds of simpleton wannabes
to fathom such subtleties.
>Lol! You are about the least subtle person I know of on line Nima,
>lol!
Ad hom. The issue was the argument not the person making it. Please
address the argument.
> The following from you is about as subtle as a turd on a hot plate:
Only to the mind of a glaze-eyed cultist such as yours who lacks any
sophistication. The position is a valid one. Try to comprehend where it
is coming from, grasshoppa.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
ROTFLMAO :)) I don't hate women. I just hate you and your cultist chums
en toto. You will have credibility to talk about who is and isn't a
mysogynist the day you abandon this patriarchal cult, with its
patriarchal prophet and patriarchal institutions. As of now you are a
hypocrite whose accusations are beyond laughable.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
Of what? That I was in the inner circle of Juan and company, wasn't any
position I needed to create. It was already there.
>because
>you thought that the creation of a group like Zuhur was a
>leadership position for you already.
LOL :)) Funniest thing I have ever heard. Zuhur was for Alison. Period.
I dare her to say otherwise. But good of you to say this, since *lists*
and ownership thereof is definitely an intrinsic part of internet
baha'i culture and mentality. Thank you for proving once again you are
a baha'i.
W
B Yatch
wahid...@gmail.com wrote:
> ROTFLMAO :)) I don't hate women. I just hate you and your cultist chums
> en toto.
That's no excuse; if you weren't a misogynist you wouldn't be using
sexist terminology in reference to _any_ woman, regardless of
philosophical differences.
PaulHammond
The agreement was that you were going to meet me at work, no-show.
There's no way I was going to take the day off to hand you your
head, cluck, cluck Holy Chicken.
I DID make a point of reminding you of the arrangement at least
three times during that week. It's hardly my fault if you
can't read, Nima.
Palu, the caller of the chicken's bluff.
PaulHammond
wahidaza...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dear asshole Larry ;-)
>
> >Subtle.
>
> Indeed. Of course one cannot expect shallow minds of simpleton
wannabes
> to fathom such subtleties.
>
> >Lol! You are about the least subtle person I know of on line Nima,
> >lol!
>
> Ad hom. The issue was the argument not the person making it. Please
> address the argument.
>
Hmm. I see the pattern here. Larry says you called Muhammad
a lizard eater, so you challenge him to find those words. Larry
finds those words, and then you are so incensed at being faced with
your own crap that you call Larry an asshole, before going on
to berate him for daring to make an ad-hom argument against
you.
What was it he said about you again, o mighty teacher? You're
about as subtle as a turd on a hotplate?
Sounds about right, cluck, cluck, Holy Chicken!
Palu
All_Bad
You challenged him to name the time and place.
<<< I will be in London in 3 days time. Put up, or shut up!
<<< As simple as that, limey ponce. Like I said, you are
<<< sacred out of your wits to meet me face to face. Name
<< a time and place.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/90bc569aca71738f
You are the cheesey sort of coward who not only bullies people as if
they all live in fear as you do, but when you cowardice is exposed, you
lie about.
Hammond accepted your challenge:
<< Cluck, cluck, cluck, Holy Chicken!
<< I'm at work that day. 12 till 5. See you there.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.religion.bahai/msg/4f222a8ef567577d
Were you firghtened into not showing, because he taunted you, or was it
the fact that he accepted your challenge which scared you?
Why do you lie about it months later? Do you suppose the readers are
all stupid enough to have forgotten the facts of the incident, or are
you just trying to convince yourself of your story?
- Mr. All Bad
All_Bad
>>Yes. Your hatred for women shines like a beacon every time you use a
>>gender-based insult on a female with whom you disagree...
>
>
> ROTFLMAO :)) I don't hate women.
To view women largely as sex objects is hateful to women, though, of
course, as a myopically misogynist pig, you can not see that.
> I just hate you and your cultist chums
> en toto. You will have credibility to talk about who is and isn't a
> mysogynist the day you abandon this patriarchal cult, with its
> patriarchal prophet and patriarchal institutions. As of now you are a
> hypocrite whose accusations are beyond laughable.
Remember, Starr is too old for you, sexist pig. You were the one who
told the group that, you pathetic hypocrite.
- Mr. All Bad
All_Bad
>>you *did* see yourself filling this position,
>
>
> Of what? That I was in the inner circle of Juan and company, wasn't any
> position I needed to create. It was already there.
>
Juan's errand boy? Quite a position!
You remain deluded. You even pretend there was an invisible directive.
You are the epitome of gullible naivete if you thought you were 'in'
with him. You posted his trash to this venue which he would not lower
himself to visit personnally, until his ass really was on fire, errand boy.
- Mr. All Bad
wahid...@gmail.com
And he NEVER did.
wahid...@gmail.com
Better than to be the ao-hole's piss-boy, like you, cultist f*ckhead.
W
wahid...@gmail.com
>course, as a myopically misogynist pig, you can not see that.
On the day you unequivocally disavow the Most Wholly Book of your
pseudo-profit and the sexist inheritance provisions in it, then talk
about who is mysogynist, cultist f*ckhead. Your hypocrisy shines
through and through, as it always does so respeldently!
W
wahid...@gmail.com
wishes to meet me face to face, the invitation stands open. I will
happily and without reservation hand his pommy ass back to him on a
silver platter. So far he is the one who has chickened out and has lied
through his teeth.
I am afraid of no baha'i coward and will happily meet you cultist
f*ckers anywhere, anyplace.
W
All_Bad
>>You challenged him to name the time and place.
>
>
> And he NEVER did.
>
You continue to lie.
You just snip out the part of the previous post, where he named the time
and place, and lie out, "he NEVER did." How pathetically stewpid do you
suppose one of your readers might be, such that they could be duped by
this performance? Maybe you are just trolling for new converts to
Duyaism, figuring anyone duped by this dodge is glaze-eyed enough to
follow you?
- Mr. All Bad
(restoring)
All_Bad
Weren't you just doing reposts while I was out? Here is that classic
you were pulling for, Polly.
- Mr. All Bad
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
fyi
From: Juan Cole jrcole@u....
Date: Sun Oct 21, 2001 4:28 am
Subject: pusallanimity of Baha'i administration
I have seen a directive from the US NSA instructing Baha'is not to say
the "prayer for America" publicly in response to the horrid assault on
our country of September 11. Apparently this instruction derives from a
fear that Baha'is will be seen as pro-American, which in turn might
endanger Baha'is living in Muslim countries.
I will try to restrain myself from a Dennis Miller rant on this subject,
but this message is the height of yellow-bellied cowardice, rank
ingratitude, and unpatriotic near-treason. The prayer for America was
revealed to celebrate its commitment to human liberty, that same liberty
that was the target of the terrorists on Black Tuesday. It was revealed
to be read *precisely* in such moments as these.
The United States Congress and State Department have been
*indefatigable*, moreover, in defending the Baha'is of Iran when they
were attacked by the Ayatollahs. Please note that they did not quake in
their booties that maybe taking up such unpopular causes as the Baha'is
might endanger the lives of Americans in the Middle East (though, that
was obviously a possibility). Americans put themselves on the line for
the Baha'is. But now that we Americans need all the allies we can get,
what is the response of the Baha'i administration? "Sorry, folks,
you're on your own. We won't risk anything for you, the way you risked
for us."
Moreover, this pretext of the poor Baha'is in Muslim countries that
keeps being trotted out to justify whatever weird policies get into Ali
Nakhjavani's head is rather thin. Uh, get a clue guys. Baha'is are not
welcome in Muslim countries *already*. You might have noticed that 200
were killed in Iran in the past 20 years and they have been banned in
Egypt, Libya, Indonesia, etc., etc. They are viewed as dangerous
heretics attempting to undermine the Muslim religion. So, that they
object to 6000 innocent civilians being butchered and vaporized is a
little unlikely to matter much one way or another to their Muslim
critics! But if they *don't* object to it, and publicly, then they have
acquiesced in barbarism. Yet, when *they* were being killed in Iran,
they ran around insisting that the European Union and the US Congress
and everyone else under the sun stridently denounce the ayatollahs!
I am sickened by this level of hypocrisy and selfishness on the part of
the more cult-like elements in our religion, which have so inexplicably
grabbed the reins of power. And, I have an even more unsettling
suspicion that some of the more extreme cultists among them, the Ian
Semples, Farzam Arbabs, Peter Khans, Doug Martins--are secretly joyous
that the United States, bastion of evil Western liberal values such as
freedom of speech and "immature" separation of religion and state, has
been humiliated and weakened. That is, I suspect that in the Baha'i Far
Right the response to all this has been somewhat similar to that of the
Taliban themselves. And that is the real reason they don't want Baha'is
reading the prayer for America. They despise America, unlike the Baha'i
Holy Figures who praised it and held it up as an exemplar.
cheers Juan Cole
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/8ae2b7aef8792fe9?hl=en
wahid...@gmail.com
Sorry, I ain't the baha'i cultist like you. That is your article of
faith as spelled out by Rod Wicks against you.
From: Rod <kash...@tpg.com.au>
Newsgroups: <talk.religion.bahai>
Date: TuesdayJanuary 661020042002 5:28 pm
Subject: Pat K, A joke...
Your entire argument has already been refuted and exposed
Pont by bloody point-
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&
ie...
You ignore all points of refutation....fail to respond to the
post...and
months later attempt to run the same line of crap AS IF it had not
already been debunked.
Bottom line confirmation of your backflip bullshit here-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Wipe your lying arse with your own words again Koli. You do not deny
what all recognised at the time...you simply claim that because I
chased her
for her false categorisation this somehow "changes" it. Your
irrational argument is bizarre...She attempts to steal from me, I cry
"stop thief! explain yourself!" you cry "Just like the thieves at
Beliefnet, not nice"....then when I pursue her you claim the pursuit
negates the crime.
For the record....Dusty did not hound me, I hounded him. For exactly
the
same reason I persuade Susan...neither would stand and explain their
vitriol and accusations, none in the Baha'i apologist gallery would
object to their abhorrent behaviour....and....in the end... having had
all attempts to discuss/resolve the issue thrown back in my face....it
was the hounding, and the hounding alone, that created an environment
in which they dared not
do it again. Despite the open and tacit support received by the limp
wristed
such as yourself.
.> you'll be writing me from the killfile.
So what bloody difference will that make? You don't respond to the
core
points made, you flee from issues and repeatedly ignore entire posts,
you recycle old arguments long answered and debunked, you say "Ta Ta,
I won't be responding to you" then you pop up with the same tired
shite. I'll stand to rebuke your blatantly hypocritical bullshit point
by laborious point every time you put it up (see below) you go right
ahead and crawl under your killfile rock with Susan. It is the surest
confirmation of the complete defeat of your intelectual inadequacy and
ethical deficiency..
> The one sided flaming began when she addressed you as 'you guys'.
I've
> pointed that out to you before.
The "one sided flaming began" with Susans "Jackass", "paranoid",
"nasty"
flames which you, in your desperate spin doctor revision subsequently
ignore/dismiss as "All good clean fun so far"
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=8ccded
73...
Faith%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D8ccded73.03091
40328.3d2ad1
43%2
540posting.google.com%26rnum%3D5
> Though "you guys" may have been inappropriate, even
discourteous,
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K, recognising and
articulating the repetition of the enemy of faith allegations on
Bnet... before the obfuscation, backflip, historical revision spin
doctor hypocrisy sets in on top of his ethical crisis..
>your subsequent unrelenting snipings and libelings of her are in
> another league from an intemperate remark.
An opinion based on tribal bias, certainly not on the post record.
I did not level any accusation of anti faith alignment at Susan. I did
not begin a personalised flame war with Susan. I did not precede these
events with post after post of blatant misrepresentation. I did not
refuse to discuss, explain, substantiate any stated position nor
resort to glib, trite and evasive avoidance of the issue nor follow
with killfile. I consistently sought ('Why you should Susan') to
ascertain the origin and rationale behind her allegation, flame and
personalised attack and received naught but further allegation/abuse.
I did not respond in kind until I had exhausted all avenues of
resolution through dialogue and flagged my intent to embrace 'Susans
rules' well before ever stooping to do so.
You have subsequently evaded, ignored and distorted the reality of
what
transpired up to the point of accusing me of "starting fights" (while
I am
in the midst of attempting to defend against another
basless/unprovoked
EofF allegation which you steadfastly choose to ignore).
"libelings of " Susan? When someone attempts to steal from me I shout
"stop thief" and pursue them when they flee. You stand in the gutter
moaning- "Thief is a libellous charge" and "You pursue the alleged too
vigorously".
"Do we do this with others"?PK
Time after time after time.
"It is not good"PK It sucks
> Here is a quote from September 2003,
Great...you quote your own analysis of what transpired as further
screen
to any examination of actually transpired. What's more you quote from
the *One* post of yours on this issue that I did not respond to....The
reason I neglected to respond to the post you cite is because I could
not decide between-"Beneath contempt Pat" and "Fuck off Pat". It was,
and remains, the saddest lamest contribution you have made on any
issue and the fact that you would choose to link to it now (as
evidence of anything other than total blind bias) simply stuns me.
>when I was looking at the origins of your flamings of Susan Maneck,
Your own language reveals and betrays you...You went looking for the
origins of my flaming Susan and turned a blind eye to every occasion
she employed unprovoked ad hom.
> "Susan had referred to you as 'you guys' in a previous message,
Snip
I have covered this ground, responded to and debunked your analysis of
what transpired. You ignore/cut the counter argument, fail to respond
to the post and subsequently return to repeat the nonsense.
> and excused her mistake with a categorisation on your logic,
Bullshit. She confirmed the categorisation as EofF.
> Though your discourse may have been poor before Susan called you "you
> guys",
Poor? She misrepresented what I said at every turn. Go back and count
the number of times I was obliged to say- "I didn't say that Susan"
and factor that into your biased misrepresentation.
> you were not yet demanding that she substantiate
> various allegations which you would make up.
The allegation I made up and you challenged Susan over?
> I don't make it up as a go along, and then ask other to substantiate
> allegations which I made up for them,
No, you see it, call it out for what it is then turn around and say it
never
happened because I pursued her over it.
>AND, when confronted about making up the allegations myself, just
attribute
it right
> back to their intentions.
Her intention and meaning was clear, you recognised and objected to
it,
she declined all opportunity to clarify or deny the intent and
provided
further confirmation. (see prior linked post that you refused to
respond to)
> > > I'd thought you'd made an ass of yourself with her when you
decided
that she > was calling you an enemy of the faith ...
> > No, you thought she was behaving just like those on Bnut and you
said
> > so at the time.
> There was a variety of behaviour being exhibited on B-net.
>What you've done with Susan over the past year, is to exhibit the
> worst of the behaviour which you were subjected to.
An 'opinion that can be neither confirmed by review of post history
nor (even IF half true) serves as no excuse to NOW pretend that Susans
original unprovoked slander did not occur or is in any way "changed"
by my subsequent pursuit of her. Your argument is inane, insane and
morally bankrupt.
> > You subsequently did a back flip and changed your tune
> > completely
> > when (having exhausted all polite requests for Susan to
substantiate)
> > I embraced her no rules/anything goes policy.
> Oh. Let me give you a reality check, Rod. First off, don't put
words in
> my mouth.
Your words- "Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee,
and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K From your big mouth.
Reality from post record checked and confirmed.
> Speak for yourself. If you think I said
> something, go ahead and look it up!
Just did, see above, provided for umpteenth time, ignoring it will not
make it cease to exist.
> As to last year, at the time, I thought Susan's use of "you guys" was
> inappropriate. I believe I did say it reminded me of
> Bnet.
We all "believe you did say it" Pat because its right there in the
reality
check. Since then you have made every effort to pretend that
recognised
reality has somehow "changed" because I pursued Susan over what we all
saw.
> However, back in Jan 03, I also said regarding your behaviour in
>the matter:
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net,
So you joined with Susan in lame "jackass" ad hom? SO WHAT!? Neither
of you provided any explanation as to WHAT the alleged jackass insult
was supposed to be provoked by. Despite repeated requests (to Susan)
it remained (as did yours) just one of a string of ad homs devoid of
any justification/explanation.
So you called me a jackass without saying why....so what?
Most of your snide attacks and all of Susans remain unexplained.
> That was Jan 03. I found it a sad thing to be saying you were a
> hypocrite:
Now you are putting words (retrospectively) in your own mouth.
I saw no reference to you saying any such thing at the time.
> But, you decide that I've done the backflip. Ha ha.
Yea.....a 2.3 Pike, Backflip and Bellywhacker
Here is part of the replay-
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
> I won't bother waiting for a substantiation or a retraction,
The substantiation you have in spades....can you read it through your
cowards killfile? A retraction is demonstrably unwarranted.
>you just make it up, and excuse yourself when your
> fabrications are pointed out to you.
Koli...These boards are littered with posts/issues and resounding
rebuttals
that you must resort to killfile to avoid. I have knocked down your
every point and every equivocation at every turn....you have not even
responded to the points raised in my last post and your sounding
retreat clearly indicates you cannot/willnot respond to this one.
> You are a waste of time to read, and you'll be writing me from the
killfile.
So you keep telling me....then coming back to get the crap kicked out
of your equivocating arse once more.
> > You have subsequently attempted several spin doctor historical
> > revisions
> > of what transpired and fled when challenged on each occasion.
> Bwa ha ha! I pointed out the relevant facts, Rod. You have accused
Susan
> of making allegations against you, and she did not make those
allegations.
Are you still hanging round toilet blocks with those child molesting
Priests
Pat?
Now I didn't just associate you with paedophiles did I Pat? I made or
inferred no direct allegation did I Pat? What I said was just a little
bit "inappropriate" wasn't it Pat?
No.........It was a fucking foul false slander....just like the one
you saw
Susan make.
> When you acknowledge that she did not make the
>allegation,
I have never made such "acknowledgment" you spin doctoring quack.
> you weasel back and renew your
> allegation. In February you started a thread, accusing her of
accusing
>you of
??????????What Pat? Lost the thread as well as the plot? Can't
complete a coherent sentence?
I do thank you though for providing but a portion of my protracted
efforts to entice Susan to some clarification, resolution or (for her)
experimental ethical conduct-
> "Because it is the only moral option.
> Because it is the only ethical option.
> Because it is the only fair option.
> Because it is the only just option.
> Because it is the only intellectually credible option.
> Because it is the only peace option.
> Because it is the only healing option.
> Because it is the only truthful option
> Because it is the only principled option.
> Because Baha'u'llah was imprisoned on the basis of false allegations.
> Because Abdul Baha condemned lying.
> Because it is the only Baha'i option.
> Because you are entitled/welcome to engage in any ad hom and
> slander bar that which misrepresents and falsifies my relationship
> to my faith.
> Because when you transgress into the realm of an individuals
relationship
> to their God and His Cause then you commit a trespass on sacred
ground.
> Now, are there any arguments you would care to put forward as to why
> you should not explain and substantiate the public allegation that a
>member of the Baha'i Faith is a member of an anti faith faction?"
> Rod, in the "Why should I thread" Feb 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=8ccded73.03
02....
48dd619a%40posting.google.com
Yup....that's the heartfelt and sincere appeal I made towards enticing
resolution....here comes the spin doctor.
> Susan denies she ever made the allegation you accuse her of:
No she doesn't dipstik...she denies using the specify term
'anti-faith.'
SEE-
> "I never used the term 'anti-faith.' Have you been reading my mind?"
She never used the term 'anti faith'...she did not have to...her
meaning was
clear...seen and commented upon by several including YOU...never
subsequently refuted by Susan and in fact supported by further
innuendo.
Do you join the Fathers in wearing the frock when instructing Altar
Boys
Pat? Never used the term paedophile did I Pat?
> and you decide that was not necessary, as you could not only read it
in
>her intention to do so, but, you allege that I could see it as well!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction w/ a resignee, and a
crackpot, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" Pat K
THE *FACTION* YOU *SAW* ME BEING *ASSOCIATED*
WITH WAS THE ANTI BAHA'I FAITH FACTION....
you backflipping bastard.
> Despite acknowledging that this charge of "anti-faith"ness, is your
> inference,
Lie. Unsupported by anything in the post record
> In late August, you ask me if it is just your imagination that you
were
> accused of bing an Enemy of the Faith on TRB. I'd
> assumed you were referring to Susan, w/o checking the details.
Pat lining up for the triple back flip and "I didn't check the
details"
Snip
> "Ah now Pat, Susan is an accademic and a professional, far too astute
> to come right out and blurt "EofF"...she simply lumped me into the
> anti faith faction, one of "them", and refused to
> explain/substantiate/justify."
> Rod, 4 September 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1743303796d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie
=U...
> You see, Rod? You had already tried this "anti-faith" allegation,
and it
> had already been found wanting.
What I see is you quoting what I have said all along. What are you
"wanting"? Concession that Susan never used the words "Enemy of the
Faith"? Done. Already. Thrice over. Irrelevant.
> This is not at all what Susan says about you; this is what you say
> that she says about you.
I say the police have your toilet block under survelience. I could say
that there is no clear allegation of association with a paedophile
faction therein......but that would be equivocating semantic bullshit.
Wouldn't it Pat?
>You've been repeating lies, and when you are
> confronted on the matter, you just make up another lie, in this case,
one
> which was already exposed as simply your own inference.
And the commonly understood clear inference *changes* (in your eyes)
in accord with the length of the subsequent pursuit-
>I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is what has changed" PK
Until you backfip it to what YOU saw and challenged becomes 'my'
supposed "lie".
> > If you are not prepared to stand and defend your current opinion of
> > convenience from the harsh light of the reality of the post
record...
> > why bother?
> Why bother? I've told you this several times, and pointed out the
> examples!
The only "examples" you have provided are confirmations of what I
have said all along. (Why don't you put up your links to posts
purporting to show Baha'is defending each other from abusive innuendo
and allegations that actually demonstrated the opposite....they served
as good examples of exactly
what you are doing now).
> When you acknowledge that Susan never called you
> anti-faith, you rationalise,
Lie. I never made such acknowledgment. I recognised (as did you) that
she did not have to use those 'terms' to associate me with the anti
faith faction. All you offer is semantic quibble over precise use of
language.
> rather than apologise.
I apologise for not having recognised you as the backflipping twat
that you are earlier.
>You pursue your jihad,
Yea, yea, yea Koli.....I pursued Susan and that *changes* the
previously
mutually recognised reality of what she was saying........dream on
wanker.
>saying that she has deemed you an enemy of the
> faith (though I did not show that link here),
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
Must have been the Golden Haired Boys Faction hey Pat?
> and when you are confronted
> and asked to substantiate that, you weasel again,
> and rationalise your libels,
By confronting you time and time again with your own recognition
of what transpired?
> > > A bit of advice, though late, speak for yourself, Rod.
> > Always have and have always stood prepared to back my assertions as
> > to what others say with links to their posts.
> Not at all. Several times you've spoken for me, misrepresenting my
views.
By quoting you directly? You are welcome to futile attempt to show me
doing
otherwise.
>Your vendetta against Susan, is, of course, based
> on words you put in her mouth.
Oh yea Koli.....I'm such a bad bad ass...flinging insult and ad hom
and
innuendo at Susan out of the blue....."jackass, paranoid, nasty,
obnoxious,
one of 'those guys' in the anti faith faction" And Susan has been such
a sweet Baha'i angel....hastening to quickly clarify any
misunderstanding or misreading of the intent we both/all read...clear
and unequivocal in her denial of any "not nice" intent wasn't she
Pat?...ever ready to engage in vitriol free resolution from the
outset.....one only has to review the
lengths and depth to which she engaged in sincere consultation in the
'Why
you should Susan' thread to see her exemplify the teachings hey Pat?.
Arsehole. .
> She never called you "anti-faith";
She never used those words.
> you made that up;
I never said she used those words.
>and she never called you "enemy of the faith",
She never used those words.
> you've made that up, too.
I never said she used those words either.
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK
The anti Faith faction? You saw her too!
> Do you derive some perverse satisfaction in making
>up lies to exaggerate how you've been maligned?
I'll let you know if I ever give it a try.
> > This constitutes the third? fourth? occasion on which you have been
> > invited/challenged to stand by and substantiate your
assertions...each
> > time you fire a snide shot and flee.
> Rod, I post the links where you make your allegations.
And I thank you for quoting me and confirming the accuracy of what
I have said all along.
> Today, I've even posted where you've acknowledged that your
> allegations were solely your inferences.
That's a bold lie. All you have attempted to do is assert that if
a clear inference or innuendo is employed rather that particular
'terms' then the meaning and intent that all (including you)
recognised
at the time is now in doubt because of lengthy pursuit of the issue.
> Nothing changes, though.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
Your right Pat....nothing changes because of the length of pursuit of
the
issue.
> > It might grant you some satisfaction....but it does not constitute
an
> > argument of any merit.
> The facts have no merit to you, because you can argue that somebody
called
> you an enemy of the faith ... by branding you as
> anti-faith ... which they had not actually done ... but had intended
to do
>... so they should substantiate your allegation.
Your own words of prior recognition betray your current lie-
"This is what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good" PK
You are welcome to try to filibuster/lie/backflip that your reference
to the "not good" basless anti faith allegations that happened at Bnet
was in reality a call to a chook raffle......but I believe that will
only
expose you further as a lying pissant.
> You're a jackass, Rod Wicks.
Pissant is staple diet of jackass.
> > > When you label yourself
> > > an EoF, don't say "Susan said ...", claim it yourself, or quote
the
> > >other party.
> > Susans intent was clear to all, yourself included, you confirmed
the
> > parallel
> > to the Bnut EofF allegations and you challenged Susans behaviour by
> > asking-
> > "Is this what we do to others".
> No doubt I was unhappy with what Susan had done,
A thousand words before you concede an obvious reality....but you just
can't muster the intestinal fortitude and basic decency to reiterate
what
it was that "Susan had done" that made you unhappy. What "Susan had
done" was clear to all....all you do is seek to obscure it.
>but your campaigning for hypocrite of the millenium, is another
matter.
What you think of my "campaign" or "hounding" or "jihad" or "pursuit"
or "righteous bust" or "endeavour to ensure Baha'is do not make
serious
false public allegations/innuendo" is a *MATTER* of ZERO relevance.
IT *CHANGES* NOTHING! And that's the backflipping point.
> You are the Baha'i on TRB who has labelled you as an Enemy of the
Faith,
not
>Susan.
So it was her spelling that originally upset you? Go ahead....make my
day...put forward an alternate explanation for your discomfort with
the mysterious thing "Susan done".
> It stems from your own mind, though you have
> the gall to demand that Susan apologise for your imaginings.
I have never ever, not once, asked- suggested- expected or inferred
that
"Susan apologise". And you dare put this fantasy in the context of my
alleged imaginings. You cannot read, remember or represent what YOU
have said let alone what I have said.
> > When subsequently asked to explain
> > your backflip and denial of your recognition of Susans allegation
you
> > advised that
> > it was my response to what she said that changed things.
> I didn't backflip. I said you were a jackass about it last year,
> and I'm 100 per cent in agreement with my assessment of last
> year. Allow me to emphasise this for your benefit, lest you put
words in
> my mouth.
God your a slimy piece of works.....the "backflip" related to your
clear
objection to Susans aligning me with the anti faith faction...not your
assessment of my "jackass" response to her allegation.
Half of what you cite refers to the psychic
assumptions/innuendo/allegations
of anti faith factional alignment "shoved in [my] face" by the Bnet
apologists. Further recognising/confirming that Susan was engaging in
"exactly the kind of crap".
> "My recollection was that Rod was less of a jackass over a year ago
on
> B-Net, and
> then even less, two years or so, ago here. This crap about what 'you
believe',
> was very unusual for Rod, and exactly the kind of crap that got
shoved in
his face
> at B-Net, a dialectic."
> - me, 21 January 2003
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1466907211d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie
=U...
> "You're a jackass, Rod Wicks."
> - Pat Kohli, today, January 2004
> (above)
> > Susan clearly categorised me as an enemy of the faith,
> You lie, relentlessly and unapologetically. If there might be
something
> lower than falsely accusing someone of being an enemy
> of the Baha'i Faith, it might be falsely accusing someone of accusing
> someone of being an enemy of the Baha'i Faith.
Or one could stoop to the depths of objecting to such an allegation
then pretending it never happened (while ignoring the next one from
Jerry J)......How low can a worm go?
> > you called her
> > out for
> I called her for bad manners, you jackass!
"Now you're associating him w/ a faction" PK The "bad manners" of
falsely aligning a Baha'i with an anti faith faction, Arsewipe.
> > it, I went after her for it and you turn round and say my hounding
her
> > erases
> > the original allegation. Then you accuse me of starting fights and
> > impose killfile for challenging your change of tune.
> I've said it then, and I say it now, what you did was wrong.
What you said then was that what Susan did was wrong and that I was
"less of a jackass" two years prior. Now you say everything changes
because I pursued Susan too long for what she did wrong.
> Tragically,you don't calm down and let up.
Oh....You mean like politely asking Susan to explain/clarify/justify
what she said without resorting to calling her "nasty, paranoid,
jackass"?
Your tribal bias bullshit is repugnant. You will stand by Susans shit.
You will stand by Joplins shit. You will tell me neither stink...and
that I should change my sox.
> You really should apologise for making up stuff and lying about it
> when you are confronted.
When you confront me with anything other than total reversal of
your previously stated position I will consider it.
> > Now you seek to assert that I labelled myself an enemy of the
faith?
> I told you that in September. Last year
You backflipped in September last year and I said so then
> I told you that you were reading her mind.
I told you that was a repugnant proposition and that I was reading
her post, and yours.
> Even you said in September that she didn't
> lable you an enemy of the faith in so many words, but accused you of
being
> anti-faith,
That's right Kiddyfiddler, she did not use the words/terms "enemy of
the
faith".......how many times do we have to cover the same semantic
grounds?
> an accusation you'd already tried out
> against her in February,
I know of no (two) separate/independent allegations.
> where you announced that your accusation was
> based on her intention .
No. I said her "intention" was clear and not dependent on the
use of explicit 'terms' such as EofF.
> This means you refused to
> substantiate where she had said what you said she said.
A false conclusion drawn from a false premise and a false account.
> > Don't piss down my back and try to tell me that it's raining Kohli.
> Grow up!
You really think you can piss any higher?
> > You played your hand during the Jerry Joplin Show.
> > You, Susan and the rest of the Baha'i apologists clearly don't give
> > a rats arse what kind of bullshit allegation one Baha'i publicly
makes
> > in regard another's relation to their faith.
> There is a lot that goes on here,
And you have your finger on the pulse of all theological/historical
trivia and a blind eye to all serious community issues.
> but, if you follow me around,
I follow you nowhere blind man.
>and insist,
Insist what?
>and, after I've looked into it,
Looked into what?
> and told you what I saw,
In relation to what? Joplins allegation or Susans? In either case I
never "followed" you nor "insisted" on anything.
> and you still want to lie about my POV,
How is quoting you a lie?
>eh, sometimes you get challenged.
Sometimes you just make incomprehensible noise Koli....as above.
> > Any lie, any slander, any
> > viscous crap allegation goes...just as long as the perp is
perceived
> > to
> > be one of yours and the recipient is a designated as non person
enemy.
> Is that it? Do you figure that Susan was not one of yours, but a non
> person enemy, so any lie you tell about her, is okey dokey?
Pat...That's about as sophisticated as the primary school- "Yea! I
know what 'you' are!...but what am I" .
I have already proved the Baha'i apologist tribal alliance
preparedness
to let any attack on a non person Baha'i go unchallenged....and I did
so
with the support of the thread links you provided.
> > It's not the sociopaths who make the basless enemy of the faith
> > allegations
> > that offend me...it's the limp wristed wankers who stand back and
> > provide tacit
> > support by letting it transpire unchallenged.
> > Or worse, seeing it for what it is, then denying it ever happened.
> Nothing tacit about your wankings; its the factual bases for your
> fantasies, where things get 'tacit.
Like Susan you have mastered the art of employing language to convey
no information. I put before you the reality of your preparedness to
cosset the likes of Joplin and you have nothing of substance to
contribute.
> In the future, when you decide that I've really accused you of being
a
> cross-dressing alcoholic cannibal, rather than pointing
> out your hypocritical lies,
"Now you're associating him with a cross dresser, an alcoholic
cannibal, and
a hypocrite, and that is not nice. Do we do this with others? This is
what happened at Beliefnet. It is not good"
> please quote from this message.
When I'm finished rubbing your nose in your prior posts Kiddyfiddler.
> I find your inferences about what I've said, to be distorted, and
> decontextualized.
Perhaps you need to adjust your spin cycle on your post modernist
white washing machine.
> I understood I was being associated with anti faith faction- Randy
> understood this, Cal understood this, Karen understood this, Dermod
> understood this, Susan understood this and you understood this.
> So what's changed Pat?
"You have been hounding her, for months, just as Dusty hounded you.
That is
what has changed" PK
If you don't like it don't write it.
All_Bad
Lexington Park MD, USA
Pick a date in the next 30 days, when you can get here the quickest at a
reasonable airfare.
Practice saying "Mubahalah"
- Mr. All Bad
Abraxas
Pay my ticket and passage over there, and I will happily come and kick
your ass, old man!
B Yatch
All_Bad <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote:
Bedford County VA, USA (you already know my exact address), and as for
timing you may as well combine your visit to my place with your visit to
Pat's, as they are less than a day apart by road, and that will allow
you to save on airfare.
And don't forget to bring that NITV tape you promised me.
--Sekhmet