Baha'u'llah's counsel
PP PL
the manifold wisdom of your Lord, nor shall ye ever gauge the knowledge
of Him Who is the All-Glorious, the All-Pervading...
Magnify My Cause and promulgate My teachings and commandments, for none
other course beside this shall beseem you, and no other path shall ever
lead unto Him. Would that ye might heed Our counsel!
PP PL
They that dispute, as prompted by their desires, are indeed wrapped in
a palpable veil.
Take heed that ye dispute not idly concerning the Almighty and His
Cause, for lo! He hath appeared amongst you invested with a Revelation
so great as to encompass all things, whether of the past or of the
future.
Dispute not with any one concerning the things of this world and its
affairs, for God hath abandoned them to such as have set their
affection upon them.
-- Baha'u'llah
PP PL
is a decree of God in this Most Great Revelation.
-Baha'u'llah
PP PL
For were men to abide by and observe the divine teachings, every trace
of evil would be banished from the face of the earth.
-Baha'u'llah
PP PL
contention or conflict and hath exhorted them to righteous deeds and
praiseworthy character.
-Baha'u'llah
PP PL
unity, and let the radiance of its light shine upon you. Gather ye
together, and for the sake of God resolve to root out whatever is the
source of contention amongst you.
-- Baha'u'llah
PP PL
accompanied by such strife and tumult, by such tyranny and upheaval?
...Their chief concern is mere opposition; their sole desire is to
ignore the truth. ...On their tongue the mention of God hath become an
empty name; in their midst His holy Word a dead letter. ...They have
placed their sordid machinations above the divine decree, have
renounced resignation unto the will of God, busied themselves with
selfish calculation, and walked in the way of the hypocrite. ...With
all their power and strength they strive to secure themselves in their
petty pursuits. ...What "oppression" is greater than that which
hath been recounted? What "oppression" is more grievous than that
a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of
God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it? For
opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God
have multiplied. This "oppression" is the essential feature of
every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not
be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must
needs follow the darkness of the night of error.
- Baha'u'llah
Heather Carr-Rowe
opinions.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 87)
PP PL
And the sentence continues:
"The shining spark of truth cometh forth only after the clash of
differing opinions. If after discussion, a decision be carried
unanimously well and good; but if, the Lord forbid, differences of
opinion should arise, a majority of voices must prevail."
Lord forbid that there be differences of opinion after the discussion.
The state of "difference" is undesireable.
And this even has a criterion:
"The members thereof must take counsel together in such wise that no
occasion for ill-feeling or discord may arise."
Reference:
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAB/sab-45.html?query=shining|spark|of|truth&action=highlight#fr1
hong...@gmail.com
PP PL wrote:
> Why is it that the advent of every true Manifestation of God hath been
> accompanied by such strife and tumult, by such tyranny and upheaval?
Many thanks for your comments, or rather your quoting the comments here
from Baha'u'llah. This issue, in my opinion, is key. I figure his
answer is that each time someone such as himself speaks emphatically
about altering an existing system, this stirs up contentious opposition
from those perceiving their interest threatened. One method of
overcoming such contentious opposition is to attempt effective
articulation that really it is in everyone's interest to improve the
existing system.
> ...Their chief concern is mere opposition; their sole desire is to
> ignore the truth.
I disagree with the literal statement here, and I admit my
understanding of the diversity of humanity may not be good enough to
match his. I guess it is possible that what he calls mere opposition
includes actions undertaken by those who perceive their vested
interests threatened and arise to defend such vested interests. That I
do understand. I wouldn't have called that mere opposition, but if this
is included I accept the first half of the above statement.
Further, I don't agree with the literal statement about having no
desire except ignoring the truth. I feel again the root of the
situation here is that vested interest is inclining an opposition even
to what may be considered the truth. The remedy in my opinion is to
attempt a clearer communication that really such truth is not opposed
to the true best interests of those fearful of their loss of prestige
and influence.
...On their tongue the mention of God hath become an
> empty name; in their midst His holy Word a dead letter.
It is, of course, as I perceive it, more to clerical leaders (and many
here would see the Baha'i authorities as included in this designation)
that these words seem addressed. It is important to understand that
contention itself, as I see it, is considered anachronistic and
ineffective by Baha'u'llah. The Holy Word, as I read it, teaches a
different and more universally beneficial methodology.
...They have
> placed their sordid machinations above the divine decree,
This is key within the context of Baha'i understanding. A manner of
behaviour which is made up of machinations and contention in the
stereotypical pattern of power politics is contrary to the divine
purpose. This has hitherto been effective, even within Baha'i politics
of the recent past, in the sense of allowing certain individuals and
factions to attain and preserve domination. It is completely
ineffective in the overarching sense of demonstrating co-operative
paradigms and proving to a sceptical humanity that there is another way
besides the traditional contentious manner of human political games
playing.
have
> renounced resignation unto the will of God, busied themselves with
> selfish calculation,
Ditto. One requirement is the attempt to suggest to the greedy and the
ambitious that their best interests are provided through a co-operative
approach and that the true interests of the species are defeated by
continued schemes and conflicts of such antagonistic selfish
calculation.
>and walked in the way of the hypocrite. ...With
> all their power and strength they strive to secure themselves in their
> petty pursuits. ...What "oppression" is greater than that which
> hath been recounted? What "oppression" is more grievous than that
> a soul seeking the truth, and wishing to attain unto the knowledge of
> God, should know not where to go for it and from whom to seek it?
This especially refers to the distance clerics wander from the heart of
spirituality and it very much applies to people confronted with the
existing situation within Baha'i.
> For
> opinions have sorely differed, and the ways unto the attainment of God
> have multiplied. This "oppression" is the essential feature of
> every Revelation. Unless it cometh to pass, the Sun of Truth will not
> be made manifest. For the break of the morn of divine guidance must
> needs follow the darkness of the night of error.
This can be understood as a very apt statement that whatever has been
the situation in the past the future is wide open. Human potential
remains fully available. Paralysis of will is not the only option.
Those who seek to perpetuate existing conflict and contention, who
teach that there cannot be selection of remedial action to longstanding
problems are perhaps imagining they are serving their personal
advantage. They really are not doing so, as the advantage of no
individual is truly served by such oppressive paralysis. And they are
not speaking correctly, for the future is not closed. Free will exists.
Choices beneficially can be selected and decisions advantaging humanity
can be made.
Very Best Wishes, Michael
> - Baha'u'llah
hong...@gmail.com
Many thanks for this quote. The key point is to recognize the
distinction between views and personalities. Everyone can address the
views without descending into antagonistic personal contention.
Co-operative approaches can very much include disagreements. The
attitude is that disagreements about understandings are separated from
antagonisms to those articulating such understandings.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
PP PL
I am still trying to digest your response to the quotations from
Baha'u'llah.
In another thread you said state:
> This conflict has many excuses, including the determined effort of some
> individuals, factions and groups to achieve dominance over others and to
> use any and all means to obtain and retain power and material stuff.
But it does seem clear that the writings advise that in the case of a
dispute, the majority opinion should rule, and that the minority group
should put away his personal desires and adopt the opinion of the
majority. The writings do state that the majority within the Baha'i
Community does have a sort of divine authority... ---> that even if
the majority is wrong, it will turn out for the best because when
united, the people of Baha will receive the Grace of God. When the
people of Baha are disunited, even if the minority view is the correct
one, then they both end up being wrong.
All people of Baha, as I understand it, should succumb to the majority
view in observation of the Greatest ideal of the Baha'i Revelation:
UNITY.
Not to say that this approach was always instructed by the
Manifestation of God. As we all know, the Manifestations of the past
have prescribed different remedies in the past, including: armed
resistance, armed defence (jihad), diminished sense of Religious Law
(i.e. Jesus Christ, Buddha). In this age, the prescription of
Baha'u'llah, as I understand it from the writings of Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha as found in the authorized and unauthorized translations,
is unity, which includes, within the Baha'i community itself, of the
sacrifice of personal opinions and views that create conflict (some,
not all, minority views) for the sake of unity.
On the other hand, if differences in opinion do not cause conflict or
alienation (which requires at least one of the two parties involved in
the conflict to feel so), then the minority view must but his faith in
God, humble himself before the Almighty.
In your view, is this an incorrect assessment of the writings of
Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha? If so, can you provide selections from
the Writings that explain, or put the quotes in perspective?
cli...@eudoramail.com
PP PL wrote:
> But it does seem clear that the writings advise that in the case of a
> dispute, the majority opinion should rule, and that the minority group
> should put away his personal desires and adopt the opinion of the
> majority.
That is true in the context of consultation. The rule applies after
consultation has taken place. Instead of consultation it is human
nature to shout at each other until the side with the loudest voice
(usually due to larger numbers) has drowned out the weaker voice. That
was the case in 1957. There was information presented and rather than
consider that information and come to a consulted upon conclusion the
information was not allowed into the discussion and upon insistence
that it be fairly concidered the one insisting it be considered was run
off.
The writings in the context you discuss above also require that if
consensus is not reached in the first round, more people be added to
the consulation group, and again if consensus is not reached then add
more people again. Then if consensus is not reached and the writings
state "God Forbid", then the majority must rule. That's a pretty far
cry from a no notes secret conclave.
Robert
Heather Carr-Rowe
Differing opinions are not only allowed within Baha'i by Baha'u'llah and
Abdu'l-Baha' such diversity of opinion is encouraged; what is not allowed is
the use of those opinions to cause the return of the same old, same old
patterns that have afflicted every other religion.
What pattern is this? It is the pattern of 'orthodox' Senex religious
leadership purging their Puer Aeternus - mystic, Gnostic,
progressive-forward looking, coreligionists. This pattern is as perennial as
religion itself.
Christian church fathers merciously purged their Gnostic brethern; so
effectively that until the discovery at Nag Hamadi the early Gnostic
Christians where as much myth as fact. Miester Eckhart was persecuted as
well as most other Christian mystics. This is still occuring as can be seen
in the Catholic Churches treatment of Matthew Fox.
Islamic orthodoxy similarily began to purge their Gnostic coreligionists
when Ali and Husayn pointed out that they had as much right to be leaders of
Islam as any one else. Sufis have been persecuted as well.
The Baha'i Faith is willy nilly following in these exact foot steps. Why?
For the very same reasons that this pattern has afflicted all previous
religions: Senex religionists become entrenched in their interpretational
orthodoxy and begin to see all who see things any differently than
themselves as a threat to that orthodoxy. They then begin to purge those
coreligionists- Puer Aeternus:mystics-Gnostics, from what has become their
possession instead of their religion, diversity be damned!
Baha'u'llah removed all excuses for such 'religious' practices, removed all
excuse for falling back into the same old, same old. Human nature being what
it is Baha'i religious leaders seem inextricably bound and determined to
repeat the same errors as their past religious brethern.
Tis a pity.
There is only us, we are them , ' as one soul '.
Yours Larry Rowe
Farihin Abdullah
but it hasn't muc bearing in real life. Any ways, how are we to do it,
no distinct guidelines are given here.... its superb exhortation but
lacks divine strength.
PP PL
I think Islam and the Baha'i Faith both have the power to enforce the
ideals they teach. The practices of prayer, fasting, and reading of
the Book bring those ideals to forefront of the person's mind.
PP PL
You have noble ideals, its clear.
cli...@eudoramail.com
Farihin Abdullah wrote:
> This is good in an idealistic world. It can be forbidden in the book
> but it hasn't muc bearing in real life. Any ways, how are we to do it,
> no distinct guidelines are given here.... its superb exhortation but
> lacks divine strength.
Hello Farihin,
Welcome to my world (this being the first time I've met you.)
You make a couple of good points.
One, there never has been, is not, nor ever will be an ideal world. At
least according to our human ideals. What you see as ideal, what I see
as ideal are most likely not similar in many respects. I don't see much
need in our expending effort to acquire an ideal world.
Things forbidden in the book, any of the books of God, are voluntary
forbiddings. God has given directions, clear and simple and God has
told you and told me that we may obey or not obey those directions at
our own peril or our own benefit. (reward and punishment)
For instance God in designing the natural world has forbidden me to
stay under water for much more than two minutes, others he allows up to
four and it is reported one instance of over five. Natural laws are a
creation of God. Obey them or not at your own peril, or benefit. In
designing the spiritual world God has forbidden me to take up the sword
or not at my own peril to die by the sword or not. That applies in the
real world.
God has forbidden me to argue and fight or not. If I choose to argue on
these threads my liver begins to burn and I become uncomfortable.
The directions from God are clear and distinct. Strive for unity and
reap the benefits or not and reap that reward.
The writings of Baha'u'llah are repleat with instructions. Each of
those instructions has the full weight of spiritual power. One of the
greatest laws of God is that you get to make the choice.
Sartre explained that a little more precisely and proved beyond a doubt
that you will make a choice whether you want to make a choice or not.
That is pretty much power in my mind.
How are we to do it? The book says "consult on all matters." There are
benefits either way. Right now the Baha'i world is hell bent on showing
the negative rewards.
We can choose to change that.
Robert
Farihin Abdullah
peace...
how serene, its somehow cooling too. idealistic, but nothing realistic
Michael McKenny
Hi, Farihin.
"Farihin Abdullah" (nawi...@gmail.com) writes:
> This is good in an idealistic world. It can be forbidden in the book
> but it hasn't muc bearing in real life. Any ways, how are we to do it,
> no distinct guidelines are given here.... its superb exhortation but
> lacks divine strength.
Many thanks for your comments. As I see it, Baha'u'llah was clear in his
expression of the methodology to increase co-operation. Firstly, there is
becoming aware of some of his key teachings relating to this: especially
the validity of a wide range of personal understandings, opinions, views,
etc. Also very much connected here is his encouragement of a spiritual
attitude as a remedy to such causes of conflict as personal ambition for
ranks and desire for material goods that foster conflict and contention.
i think if Baha'is really tried to acquire this awareness, to live this
life and to co-operate, rather than clash then perhaps much could be
observed that is very possitive, beneficial and conducive to harmony,
happiness and peace.
> PP PL wrote:
>> Conflict and contention are categorically forbidden in His Book. This
>> is a decree of God in this Most Great Revelation.
>>
>> -Baha'u'llah
>
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
--
"When all is dark, search for the light, and if it isn't there, create it"
(Sheila Woodgold, June 23, 2005)
cli...@eudoramail.com
To make the unrealistic real takes a bit of effort. To want something
does not bring it into existence. To accomplish peace starts too with a
single step. Step one decide for yourself that peace is worth the
effort. Step two is to work toward that goal, without being unpeaceful.
Realistic? You and I won't live long enough to see it, but it will
come. You and I won't see the fourth- well maybe you will but not the
fifth -guardian either but he will come.
Robert
hong...@gmail.com
PP PL wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I am still trying to digest your response to the quotations from
> Baha'u'llah.
Many thanks for taking the time to consider them.
> In another thread you said state:
>
> > This conflict has many excuses, including the determined effort of some
> > individuals, factions and groups to achieve dominance over others and to
> > use any and all means to obtain and retain power and material stuff.
>
> But it does seem clear that the writings advise that in the case of a
> dispute, the majority opinion should rule, and that the minority group
> should put away his personal desires and adopt the opinion of the
> majority. The writings do state that the majority within the Baha'i
> Community does have a sort of divine authority... ---> that even if
> the majority is wrong, it will turn out for the best because when
> united, the people of Baha will receive the Grace of God. When the
> people of Baha are disunited, even if the minority view is the correct
> one, then they both end up being wrong.
This is a remarkable teaching of a spiritual master, but you have only
mentioned half of it. The reason advanced for following this spiritual
advice is that if an action is wrong and there is harmonious support
for it, then it will quickly become clear that this course of action is
not working and so it can be corrected, the decision altered and
harmonious efforts made along the corrected route. The quote has been
misunderstood as an authorization of administrators making any decision
at all and expecting such a decision must be supported by everyone even
when it is obvious that the decision is not working.
> All people of Baha, as I understand it, should succumb to the majority
> view in observation of the Greatest ideal of the Baha'i Revelation:
> UNITY.
Uniformity is contrary to the Baha'i teachings, which contain an
essential principle of harmony (unity in diversity).
>
> Not to say that this approach was always instructed by the
> Manifestation of God. As we all know, the Manifestations of the past
> have prescribed different remedies in the past, including: armed
> resistance, armed defence (jihad),
Actually jihad (sacred struggle) is one of these multilayered terms.
The most spiritual significance of this term has nothing to do with
using physical swords. It is exactly as the text of the sacred GITA
that on one literal level appears to be about convincing Arjuna to
enter into a battle, a conflict of clashing chariots and soaring
spears. However, the eye of the soul understands that Muhammad, Krishna
and all the holy ones really address their disciples and followers
about the most intense struggle, that against the lower human nature.
The struggle against baser instincts and appetites (including greed,
ambition and prejudiced animosity) is much more in need of focused
attention than anything inciting violence against fellow humans.
diminished sense of Religious Law
> (i.e. Jesus Christ, Buddha). In this age, the prescription of
> Baha'u'llah, as I understand it from the writings of Baha'u'llah and
> Abdu'l-Baha as found in the authorized and unauthorized translations,
> is unity,
Uniformity is contrary to the Baha'i teachings, which inculcate
awareness of the vast diversity of humanity. It is harmony (unity in
diversity) that is the spiritual teaching, aim and objective of the
Baha'i Faith. This is completely oposite to the old world (childish)
attuitude of dictatorial domination and all the derivitive power games,
factionalism and conflict that totalitarian systems have been allured
by.
which includes, within the Baha'i community itself, of the
> sacrifice of personal opinions and views that create conflict (some,
> not all, minority views) for the sake of unity.
Actually, the Baha'i teaching is that there is a vast variety, a wide
spectrum, a great diversity of personal understanding all very valid,
indeed divinely created. No one is asked by Baha'u'llah to sacrifice
personal opinions, to squelch them or to hide them in a dark basement.
Personal opinions are as the multicoloured flowers of the garden of
humanity. What is asked is that when the administrators of a Baha'i
community render a decision, even those who consider this particular
decision incorrect exert an effort to carry it out, so that this
decision may be assessed as beneficial, constructive and successful or
as being of negative impact on the community.
In addition, of course, Baha'u'llah, as every spiritual master, advises
that moderation be the guiding light of individuals, groups and
administrative bodies within Baha'i, as for each and all upon the
planet. Unreasonable decisions are not expected to be attempted and
each and all are exempted from seeking to follow what is extremist.
> On the other hand, if differences in opinion do not cause conflict or
> alienation (which requires at least one of the two parties involved in
> the conflict to feel so), then the minority view must but his faith in
> God, humble himself before the Almighty.
Indeed, humility is a very valued virtue, especially for those
individuals finding themselves in positions of rank and power. They
ought very clearly to realize that they are not superior to others in
spirituality, even in insight or divine approval. This remedy will help
overcome the natural temptation of human leadership, even in nominally
spiritual organizations, to expect it can dictate anything at all and
be unquestioningly obeyed. That is old world (childish) thinking. This
is not in accord with Baha'u'llah's advice that now humans conduct
themselves in a mature manner. Demanding unquestioning obedience is not
a sign of maturity, nor is unquestioned obedience a characteristic of a
mature being.
> In your view, is this an incorrect assessment of the writings of
> Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha? If so, can you provide selections from
> the Writings that explain, or put the quotes in perspective?
I have above attempted to provide some missing balance to a depiction
of Baha'i, as I read it in your description that caused Baha'i to look
like an extremist entity. The addition of a moderate understanding is
very helpful in a Baha'i context, in any religious context and indeed
of any human analysis. I hope such moderation, so very much required in
these divisive and extremist times, has been of benefit to you and
yours.
Thrice Three Blessings, Michael
Heather Carr-Rowe
' Larry,
You have noble ideals, its clear.'
Not so much my ideals as Baha'u'llah's and Abdu'l-Baha's; those ideals
which are the 'original intention' of religion.
I realize that the following quote of Abdu'l-Baha's from Divine Philosophy
is not 'authorized', but it does reflect the spirit of what He said.:
"Thus religion which was destined to become the cause of friendship has
become the cause of enmity. Religion, which was meant to be sweet honey, is
changed into bitter poison. Religion, the function of which was to illumine
humanity, has become the factor of obscuration and gloom. Religion, which
was to confer the consciousness of everlasting life, has become the fiendish
instrument of death. As long as these superstitions are in the hands and
these nets of dissimulation and hypocrisy in the fingers, religion will be
the most harmful agency on this planet. These superannuated traditions,
which are inherited unto the present day, must be abandoned, and thus free
from past superstitions we must investigate the original intention. The
basis on which they have fabricated the superstructures will be seen to be
one, and that one, absolute reality; and as reality is indivisible, complete
unity and amity will be instituted and the true religion of God will become
unveiled in all its beauty and sublimity in the assemblage of the world."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 161)
I've heard enough enmity here on TRB to last a life time, I do realize as
well that liberal Baha'is must accept their share of the blame for the
enmity that currently poisons the Baha'i Faith.
I always heard as a child " It takes two to tangle. "
Even though it was conservative individuals within the Baha'i
Administrative Order who began the process of drawing artificial lines
between themselves and their liberal coreligionists, liberal Baha'is have
drawn some artificial lines as well.
It is time to call an armistice within the Baha'i Faith, this can only
happen though if the Baha'i Administrative Order comes clean and accepts Its
full responcibility in the creation of the divide which currently afflicts
the Baha'i Faith.
The biggest problem of all is that the Baha'i Administrative Order sees
Itself as blameless, as the victim of acts from an " internal opposition",
from those they have marginalized by typifing them as "enemies". This breach
within the Baha'i Faith can be traced directly to this mindset, a mindset
clearly counselled against by Abdu'l-Baha' and Baha'u'llah, the religious
mindset which uses the scape goat of 'enemies' to justify division.
Until such time as the Baha'i Administrative Order and specifically The
Universal House of Justice become willing to admit that it has been their
own lack of leadership which has led to the widening of the gulf between
conservative and liberal Baha'is, all liberal Baha'is can do is try to
inform other Baha'is of the facts; try to inform other Baha'is about the
suppression and mistreatment of their coreligionists.
Whenever liberal voices within the community of Baha' have made even the
slightest attempt to be heard, whenever liberals Baha'is have even touched
on the need for reform within the Baha'i Faith the iron fist of the
Administrative Order has been quick to smash the attempt. The historical
record speaks for itself: The L.A. Study Class, A Modest Proposal, The
Service of Women paper, The clamp down on talisman1, Dialogue Magazine, the
expulsion of Michael McKenny for speaking openly of his personal
interpretation of Baha'i teachings and of the conclusions of his
interpretations: that women need to be welcomed into their rightful roles as
members of the Universal House of Justice for it to become two-winged and
fly, the expulsion of Alision Marshall for daring to suggest that there can
be faith without the Administrative Order.
Until the Administrative Order matures to the point of being able to accept
and publicly admit its own share of responcibility in creating the current
polarization within the community of Baha', it is not only the right of
liberal Baha'is to speak their consciences, it is the duty of liberal
Baha'is to continue to remind their fellow coreligionists that such behavior
on the part of the Administrative Order is not only ignorant and intolerant,
it is un-Baha'i like to the nth degree!
Finnegan's Wake
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:ONhBe.9857$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> I've heard enough enmity here on TRB to last a life time, I do realize as
> well that liberal Baha'is must accept their share of the blame for the
> enmity that currently poisons the Baha'i Faith.
Bullshit Larry! What a vicious beast it is that defends itself.
I never sit on my ass when my sense of natural justice is offended.
> I always heard as a child " It takes two to tangle. "
But usually it only takes one to start it.
> Even though it was conservative individuals within the Baha'i
> Administrative Order who began the process of drawing artificial lines
> between themselves and their liberal coreligionists, liberal Baha'is have
> drawn some artificial lines as well.
Freedom of conscience is an artificial line?
> It is time to call an armistice within the Baha'i Faith, this can only
> happen though if the Baha'i Administrative Order comes clean and accepts
Its
> full responcibility in the creation of the divide which currently afflicts
> the Baha'i Faith.
A bad idea to set pre-conditions for an armistice!
> The biggest problem of all is that the Baha'i Administrative Order sees
> Itself as blameless, as the victim of acts from an " internal opposition",
> from those they have marginalized by typifing them as "enemies". This
breach
> within the Baha'i Faith can be traced directly to this mindset, a mindset
> clearly counselled against by Abdu'l-Baha' and Baha'u'llah, the religious
> mindset which uses the scape goat of 'enemies' to justify division.
The Trustees of the Merciful as they are apparently styled ... and gobshites
like that expect the world to be favourably impressed by their words and
deeds.
> Until the Administrative Order matures to the point of being able to
accept
> and publicly admit its own share of responcibility in creating the current
> polarization within the community of Baha', it is not only the right of
> liberal Baha'is to speak their consciences, it is the duty of liberal
> Baha'is to continue to remind their fellow coreligionists that such
behavior
> on the part of the Administrative Order is not only ignorant and
intolerant,
> it is un-Baha'i like to the nth degree!
Good old Larry ... he's gonna fight for what he believes in!
Ya wanna rethink the "bullsht" bit?
Randy Burns
"Heather Carr-Rowe" <ro...@northwestel.net> wrote in message
news:ONhBe.9857$qg1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Even though it was conservative individuals within the Baha'i
> Administrative Order who began the process of drawing artificial lines
> between themselves and their liberal coreligionists, liberal Baha'is have
> drawn some artificial lines as well.
This may not be literally true, Larry. Who was it that started the rumor
that mass teaching efforts in South Carolina had been drastically curtailed
because of racism? Isn't that what really started most of the problems of
the last twenty some years?
> It is time to call an armistice within the Baha'i Faith, this can only
> happen though if the Baha'i Administrative Order comes clean and accepts
Its
> full responcibility in the creation of the divide which currently afflicts
> the Baha'i Faith.
Two things are necessary above all else. Clear guidelines for due process
must be established and adhered to in Administrative matters, and the
Appointee branch must receive better training in how to carry out it's
various tasks. You can't just call a truce, and then not clear up any of
the problems, you must start where the problems themselves are created in
the first place. The major source of our problems have been the overzealous
efforts of the Appointed Branch.
Most of the Administrative Order in and of itself consists of ordinary rank
and file Baha'is. Only the Appointed Branch consists almost exclusively of
Cadre Baha'is. Couldn't we train these people a bit better and screen them
better before hand?
We wouldn't want a bunch of bozos and clowns reaching the highest levels of
our AO, after all.
> The biggest problem of all is that the Baha'i Administrative Order sees
> Itself as blameless, as the victim of acts from an " internal opposition",
> from those they have marginalized by typifing them as "enemies". This
breach
> within the Baha'i Faith can be traced directly to this mindset, a mindset
> clearly counselled against by Abdu'l-Baha' and Baha'u'llah, the religious
> mindset which uses the scape goat of 'enemies' to justify division.
It's the Cadre and the Cadre mindset which has this opinion. Most of the AO
consists of "us," ie. rank and file Baha'is, even at the NSA level. These
people are easily controlled by Cadre Baha'is, so basically whatever the
Cadre puts out becomes the more or less official position of the Faith.
The reason why the Cadre adopts this mindset is obvious, since the Cadre
operaties from a position without "authority" in the Faith, yet exercises a
huge amount of power over the rank and file members. Protection of the
power possessed by the Cadre is all important, and the principles of
Baha'u'llah are easily jettisoned in pursuit of such a task.
> Until such time as the Baha'i Administrative Order and specifically The
> Universal House of Justice become willing to admit that it has been their
> own lack of leadership which has led to the widening of the gulf between
> conservative and liberal Baha'is, all liberal Baha'is can do is try to
> inform other Baha'is of the facts; try to inform other Baha'is about the
> suppression and mistreatment of their coreligionists.
It is primarily a lack of leadership which has either compelled or allowed
the usurpation of power by the Cadre, which of course has by now captured
the UHJ itself and is fairly secure against attack from that direction.
> Whenever liberal voices within the community of Baha' have made even the
> slightest attempt to be heard, whenever liberals Baha'is have even touched
> on the need for reform within the Baha'i Faith the iron fist of the
> Administrative Order has been quick to smash the attempt. The historical
> record speaks for itself: The L.A. Study Class, A Modest Proposal, The
> Service of Women paper, The clamp down on talisman1, Dialogue Magazine,
the
> expulsion of Michael McKenny for speaking openly of his personal
> interpretation of Baha'i teachings and of the conclusions of his
> interpretations: that women need to be welcomed into their rightful roles
as
> members of the Universal House of Justice for it to become two-winged and
> fly, the expulsion of Alision Marshall for daring to suggest that there
can
> be faith without the Administrative Order.
Is that why she was expelled? I've often wondered.
> Until the Administrative Order matures to the point of being able to
accept
> and publicly admit its own share of responcibility in creating the current
> polarization within the community of Baha', it is not only the right of
> liberal Baha'is to speak their consciences, it is the duty of liberal
> Baha'is to continue to remind their fellow coreligionists that such
behavior
> on the part of the Administrative Order is not only ignorant and
intolerant,
> it is un-Baha'i like to the nth degree!
That and expose the machinations of the Cadre. The Cadre lives in the
shadows and draws strength from the darkness that inhabits the old world
order. Up against the wall rank 'n filers!
Cheers, Randy
PP PL
No offense intended, here is my final question.
---
One thing that will clear up your posts for me is to understand what
you mean by "abusive commands from institutions, even the Universal
House of Justice". Do you, first, believe it is possible for the
Universal House of Justice to commit abuse and generate abusive
commands? If so, do you feel that Shoghi Effendi possibly could have
committed abuse as well? If the answer is yes to the latter and no to
the former, what justification is there to believe that it is correct
to ascribe abuse to the Universal House of Justice but not to Shoghi
Effendi? Afterall, they are both appointed as being successors to and
who derive direct guidance from, Baha'u'llah.
While we are on this topic, why not include Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah
in this list of possible perpetrators of abusive conduct and commands?
Finally, if the belief in the perfection of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
is based on FAITH, why is it that this FAITH cannot be applied to
Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice?
To end, one justification for acceptance of abuse committed by the
Universal House of Justice may be that certain peoples or groups
testify to having been on the receiving end of this abuse.
But then if testimony and experience is proof of abuse and the abuser,
aren't there peoples and groups who claim that they were on the
receiving end of abuse at the Hands of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
Themselves? See www.bayanic.com for example. Why not accept the
claims made by these group as well? Wouldn't this logic put an end to
ALL religious faith, be it in Christ, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah, let
alone Baha'u'llah's appointed successors Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi,
and the Universal House of Justice?
Heather Carr-Rowe
My point is that at some point people have to sit down and talk if they
ever want to coexist and live in peace. Who ever thought that Catholics and
Protestants would be able to not only sit down and talk but share governance
in Northern Ireland? Similarly, at some point, Baha'is of differing
cognitive styles will have to sit down and talk and find their common
ground.
At some point people have to turn in their guns and learn to walk and talk
together. It not only takes two to tangle, it takes two to make peace.
Any kind of 'armistice' can only happen though if people are at least
willing to talk. So far the entrenched conservative Baha'i clique is
unwilling to even recognise the fact that liberal Baha'is exist as
legitimate Baha'is and not as an " internal opposition ", let alone
recognise that they need to communicate with them as equals.
As Randy says, for a process of reconciliation to begin there must be a
system of due process established first.
As I pointed out, the A.O. would have to come clean first of all and admit
its role in allowing, and the creation of, the current problems which
afflict the Baha'i Faith. The chances of this occurring seem pretty slim at
this time so any talk of treaty is speculative at best. Still, some one,
somewhere, at some point in time, needs to hold out an olive branch.
I have a feeling that the darkness of the Cadre will be exposed in the long
run. It is evident to anyone with an open mind that the emperors have been
without clothes for some time, it is only a matter of time before they get
caught out in the cold.
Yours Larry
"Finnegan's Wake" <grim_reap...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:db4bso$200$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
cli...@eudoramail.com
For instance, you could start talking to me. I've been running around
with an olive branch for a long time.
Robert
Finnegan's Wake
"PP PL" <praisewor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121368700.4...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Michael & Larry,
>
> No offense intended, here is my final question.
>
> ---
>
> One thing that will clear up your posts for me is to understand what
> you mean by "abusive commands from institutions, even the Universal
> House of Justice". Do you, first, believe it is possible for the
> Universal House of Justice to commit abuse and generate abusive
> commands?
Yes.
> If so, do you feel that Shoghi Effendi possibly could have
> committed abuse as well?
Yes.
> If the answer is yes to the latter and no to
> the former, what justification is there to believe that it is correct
> to ascribe abuse to the Universal House of Justice but not to Shoghi
> Effendi? Afterall, they are both appointed as being successors to and
> who derive direct guidance from, Baha'u'llah.
>
> While we are on this topic, why not include Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah
> in this list of possible perpetrators of abusive conduct and commands?
And why not indeed?
> Finally, if the belief in the perfection of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
> is based on FAITH, why is it that this FAITH cannot be applied to
> Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice?
Well, the former is a fraudster and the latter illegitimate.
> To end, one justification for acceptance of abuse committed by the
> Universal House of Justice may be that certain peoples or groups
> testify to having been on the receiving end of this abuse.
>
> But then if testimony and experience is proof of abuse and the abuser,
> aren't there peoples and groups who claim that they were on the
> receiving end of abuse at the Hands of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
> Themselves? See www.bayanic.com for example. Why not accept the
> claims made by these group as well?
Indeed!
> Wouldn't this logic put an end to
> ALL religious faith, be it in Christ, Muhammad, or Baha'u'llah, let
> alone Baha'u'llah's appointed successors Abdu'l-Baha, Shoghi Effendi,
> and the Universal House of Justice?
What a splendid idea! It just goes to prove that even a twit can sometime
come up with a decent concept ... that whole infinite number of typewriters,
an infinite number of monkeys and the Collected Opera of Shakespeare, thing.
Well done PissPoor!
>
PP PL
Regards.
PP PL
I would like to see your response to my question if possible, it would
definitely help me understand your perspective better.
Heather Carr-Rowe
Guess I must have missed your question sorry. Would you mind repeating it?
Yours Larry
"PP PL" <praisewor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1121389395....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
PP PL
you mean by "abusive commands from institutions, even the Universal
House of Justice". Do you, first, believe it is possible for the
Universal House of Justice to commit abuse and generate abusive
committed abuse as well? If the answer is yes to the latter and no to
the former, what justification is there to believe that it is correct
to ascribe abuse to the Universal House of Justice but not to Shoghi
Effendi? Afterall, they are both appointed as being successors to and
who derive direct guidance from, Baha'u'llah.
While we are on this topic, why not include Abdu'l-Baha or Baha'u'llah
in this list of possible perpetrators of abusive conduct and commands?
Finally, if the belief in the perfection of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
is based on FAITH, why is it that this FAITH cannot be applied to
Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of Justice?
To end, one justification for acceptance of abuse committed by the
Universal House of Justice may be that certain peoples or groups
testify to having been on the receiving end of this abuse.
But then if testimony and experience is proof of abuse and the abuser,
aren't there peoples and groups who claim that they were on the
receiving end of abuse at the Hands of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha
Themselves? See www.bayanic.com for example. Why not accept the
claims made by these group as well? Wouldn't this logic put an end to
PP PL
> have to come clean first of all and admit its role in allowing, and the
> creation of, the current problems which afflict the Baha'i Faith.
Larry, While I am waiting for your response to my question, I would
like to point out that it is not the Administrative Order that layed
down the limitation of "sitting down and talking", it was Baha'u'llah,
Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi who did it. Did I understand them
incorrectly? Thanks for your help.
*General violators of the Bab's covenant and Baha'u'llah's covenant:
"...If you detect in any man the least perceptible breath of violation,
shun him and keep away from him." - Baha'u'llah
*Regarding Babis and Azalis and Bayanis: "Baha'u'llah, in all the
Tablets and Epistles, forbade the true and firm friends from
associating and meeting the violators of the Covenant of His Holiness,
the Bab, saying that no one should go near them because their breath is
like the poison of the snake that kills instantly." - Abdu'l-Baha
"And now, one of the greatest and most fundamental principles of the
Cause of God is to shun and avoid entirely the Covenant-breakers, for
they will utterly destroy the Cause of God, exterminate His Law and
render of no account all efforts exerted in the past." - Shoghi Effendi
"He noted the report of ... about her meeting with the grandchild of
Subhi Azal. He feels that the friends should as much as possible avoid
her, as it is very unlikely she has anything but prejudice against
Baha'u'llah, in view of her background." - Shoghi Effendi
* Regarding civil and human rights of covenant-breakers:
"You must of course send Avarih (a Covenant-breaker) his title
deed through the Qamsar Local Spiritual Assembly, as it is his
right. The friends must have full regard for his rights inasmuch
as civil rights have no relation whatsoever to the beliefs of
individuals. The Baha'is must be free and sanctified from
religious prejudice and from ignorant fanaticism." - Shoghi
Effendi
Randy Burns
> "...If you detect in any man the least perceptible breath of violation,
> shun him and keep away from him." - Baha'u'llah
That's very good advice, you know.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> This may not be literally true, Larry. Who was it that started the rumor
> that mass teaching efforts in South Carolina had been drastically curtailed
> because of racism?
Randy,
I believe the person who started that rumor is now dead. Eric Pierce
repeated what this guy had told him onn Talisman and then Juan Cole
took this hearsay to town.
> Two things are necessary above all else. Clear guidelines for due process
> must be established and adhered to in Administrative matters, and the
> Appointee branch must receive better training in how to carry out it's
> various tasks.
Due process will emerge in its own time. As for better training for the
Appointed branch, they are always doing things to improve that. If you
want to consult with it, then consult with it directly. But they aren't
coming here to consult with you.
> Most of the Administrative Order in and of itself consists of ordinary rank
> and file Baha'is. Only the Appointed Branch consists almost exclusively of
> Cadre Baha'is.
And using terms like 'Cadre Baha'is' is a sure indication that someone
is not interested in consultation anyhow.
> > Until such time as the Baha'i Administrative Order and specifically The
> > Universal House of Justice become willing to admit that it has been their
> > own lack of leadership which has led to the widening of the gulf between
> > conservative and liberal Baha'is,
In other words, until they deny what Abdu'l-Baha said about them? Not
going to happen, Larry.
the expulsion of Alision Marshall for daring to suggest that there
> can
> > be faith without the Administrative Order.
>
> Is that why she was expelled? I've often wondered.
The Universal House of Justice removed her from the rolls almost
immediately after the posting of her article stating that belief in the
infallibility of the Universal House of Justice constituted shirk, or
joining partners with God.
> That and expose the machinations of the Cadre.
And that will happen right around the time the Jews say that Protocols
of the Elders of Zion was not really a forgery after all.
Susan
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121459943.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I believe the person who started that rumor is now dead. Eric Pierce
> repeated what this guy had told him onn Talisman and then Juan Cole
> took this hearsay to town.
I don't know Eric Pierce, but I first heard this rumor in December of 1980.
I didn't know Talisman was around back then.
sma...@jam.rr.com
> I don't know Eric Pierce, but I first heard this rumor in December of 1980.
> I didn't know Talisman was around back then.
Eric was reporting what an African-American who had gone there as a
homefront pioneer had asserted. But this guy did not give any evidence
for this. It just seemed to represent his personal sentiments.
Heather Carr-Rowe
In answer to your question I offer the Words of Abdu'l-Baha' :
"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is
sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of
ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the
secrets of creation, and manifestation of the hidden verities of the
contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of
the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world,
what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at
the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope
of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and
conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of
[His] servants. So in the world of existence two persons unanimous in all
grades [of thought] and all beliefs cannot be found. "
(Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 91)
Abdu'l-Baha' makes it absolutely clear here that conscience is sacred and
that interrogation of that conscience is something that takes place in the
Abha Kingdom between the believer and God. He makes it clear that conscience
' convictions and ideas ' are within God's comprehension not the
comprehension of His servants.
Are Baha'i Institutions so arrogant as to believe that they are not
servants of God but are the King of Kings Himself!
Abdu'l-Baha' states that no two people in the entire world of existence are
unanimous in all grades of thought and yet it is exactly this sort of
unanimous uniformity that the Universal House of Justice is seeking to
create within the Baha'i Faith!
There are two types of obedience Praiseworthy, conscientious and blind. If
we mute our consciences in order to conform we may well be guilty of blind
obedience, blind imitation. At least if we are conscientiously obedient and
put the test to our obedience with our consciences, we will be able to say
to God's Face that we tried to be true to seeing with our own eyes and
understanding with our own hearts and minds; this, even if we have been
wrong. If we have suspended our consciences in order to conform and been
blindly obedient but have been wrong what is our excuse then?
There is only us, we are them, ' as one soul '.
Yours Larry Rowe
sma...@jam.rr.com
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121481459.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Great non-answer, Larry!
>
Too late to get him into the AO ... he has left! Great pity ... if he can
excel at non-answers, he'd do well in the Cadre!
Randy Burns
--
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121479850.5...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
cli...@eudoramail.com
You have really outdone yourselves this time!!!!!!
Great non answer?
The words of Abdul Baha are not adequate to answer?
Maybe I don't understand the question?
Or is this some of the technique T. Casey was talking to you about on
the other thread? Make a counterpoint not related to the issue and hope
no one notices.
Goodness gracious, Finnegan you never did have an credibility but
Susan, why I had even thought she was correct once in a while. Now
neither of you, individually or in tandem have an ounce left.
Robert
Heather Carr-Rowe
non-answer.
Perhaps when the Baha'i Administrative Order begins to see answers in such
Words of Abdu'l-Baha' they will be worthy to exemplify those Words!
Yours Larry Rowe
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121481459.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Great non-answer, Larry!
>
Finnegan's Wake
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1121541616.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What exactly are you raving about? Any fear that you could cite the post
for which this is, allegedly, a response of measured and proportionate
content?
> Robert
>
Finnegan's Wake
> Finnegan's Wake, I honestly appreciate the straighforward response.
Bend over and I'll kick the other cheek!
>
> Regards.
>
sma...@jam.rr.com
> It is unfortunate for you Susan that you see Abdu'l-Baha's Words as a
> non-answer.
Anything can be a non-answer if it is not relevant to the question
asked.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121575764.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Just like that?
>
Rod
Side bet Dermod....If/when the post is cited...it will make nothing clearer
;-)
Rod
The blind Zen Baha'i master gives instruction!
> Just like that?
Yes grasshopper.....just like that.
cli...@eudoramail.com
what post could possibly make any thing clear to you?
Lies, lies, damned lies! Hah. Look at the power of lies. They have
created babbling idiots.
Myself excluded of course, or is that shunned rather than excluded?
Robert
Rod
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1121612584....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> idiotic gibberish going from bad to worse.
That's fine advertising Robert but can you sustain and follow through?
> what post could possibly make any thing clear to you?
One that actually responded to the points, arguments and
questions presented rather than the arrogant rants of a self
absorbed narcissist who cuts, runs and evades all.
> Lies, lies, damned lies! Hah. Look at the power of lies.
Contradicting your prior position yet again?
"Lies or truth, flip the coin, can encite an individual
to good action or to bad action."
"So yes, the lie has power "
cli...@eudoramail.com
Rod wrote:
> One that actually responded to the points, arguments and
> questions presented rather than the arrogant rants of a self
> absorbed narcissist who cuts, runs and evades all.
Where was that Rod? Where did I cut and run?
Responding to an idea, a concept requires a bit more than stating, "I
disagree" it requires reasons for that disagreement. Where are your
reasons, Rod?
Now you have reverted to your old tactic of blustering and bloviating
and not addressing the message but kicking out at the messenger.
Jabbing I believe you called it.
Where are your reasons, Rod?
I say Lies have no power.
You say lies have power and you yourself proved it.
I say let me reiterate.
You say you are arragont full of rants and to boot a narcissist who
cuts and runs.
Where have I cut and run Rod? Don't even address the other items, they
are dismissed as lies.
What are your reasonings on your statements which have obviously been
offered as an evasive tactic to keep from answering the concept that
lies have no power.
Rod you do a beautiful two step but you don't say anything.
I am beginning to doubt that you can pull together a cohesive thought
on anything and THAT may be why you are at odds with your NSA.
By what reasoning can you blame a thrown rock for hitting something?
By what reasoning can you blame a lie for influencing an individual?
In either case the damage was caused by a person of low intelligence
and low character, not caused by the tool.
Robert
PP PL
Hi Larry,
I was actually looking for a yes/no answer with some texts to back it
up where necessary. Why is it that I am looking at it incorrectly and
cannot see it from your perspective? I need your help to explain away
in my own mind the plethora of verses that put limits to liberty (for
moderation and wisdom).
Thanks.
cli...@eudoramail.com
Take a look at PPs post just above, now that is a real response.
BTW you would do well to read both Michael M and Larry R who have gone
to great lengths to explain the very things you are railing against. A
little more reading and a little less expounding might serve you well.
Robert
sma...@jam.rr.com
Randy Burns wrote:
> And what was the year when this happened?
The year what happened?
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121804942....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Randy Burns wrote:
> > And what was the year when this happened?
>
> The year what happened?
Exactly, see I told you so.
sma...@jam.rr.com
>
> Exactly, see I told you so.
I'm glad we are agreed that the NSA did not stop any mass teaching in
the South for racist reasons. ;-}
Heather Carr-Rowe
The extreme of liberty is anarchy, the extreme of the lack of liberty is
totalitarianism; the happy medium is conscientious liberty; a liberty that
refuses to compromise justice and equity even in matters of faith, in
matters of religion.
Yes it is possible for the Universal House of Justice to commit abuse and
generate abusive commands. It has already done so in It's attempt to
reintroduce religious practices that Baha'u'llah Himself removed as to the
dividing of humanity "the evil tree" from "the pure tree".
This is made perfectly clear in the following Words of Abdu'l-Baha' and in
the Universal House of Justices' own words. Contrast these words and
consider who gave voice to those Words which are contradicted by the
Universal House of Justices' own words and actions and you'll have your
answer Praiseworthy
"In this way His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh expressed the oneness of humankind
whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world has been
represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of the Book
of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and error or
the evil tree. The former were considered as belonging to the faithful and
the others to the hosts of the irreligious and infidel; one part of humanity
the recipients of divine mercy and the other the object of the wrath of
their Creator. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh removed this by proclaiming the
oneness of the world of humanity and this principle is specialized in His
teachings for He has submerged all mankind in the sea of divine generosity.
Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are ailing; they need to be
healed. Some are immature as children; they need to be trained. But all are
recipients of the bounty and bestowals of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 246)
Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary
Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those
"who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith",
discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to
the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith
has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the
"dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the
forces of darkness".
(The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counsellors, p. 16)
To counsel Baha'is, to counsel Councillors and institutions such as the
Auxiliary Board to return to religious practices that Baha'u'llah Himself
removed, dividing humanity "the evil tree" from the "pure tree", "the army
of light" from the "forces of darkness"; is to dishonor Baha'u'llah's
teaching of the oneness of humanity, to dishonor the fact that it is the
regarding of one another 'as one soul' that is the very intent and purpose
for all Scripture, for the Cause.
To counsel the treating of fellow coreligionists in this manner is to
return to the former religious practices which used exactly such backwards
and superstitious excuses to divide humanity, to counsel the treating of
fellow coreligionists in this manner is to show a total ignorance of and to
disregard the truth that we are all ' as one soul '.
Infallibility when translated properly does not equate with God's Absolute
Infallibility as some Baha'is seem to believe. It means without sin.
It was Shoghi himself who said that without the guidance of the
Guardianship: the World Order of Bahá'u'lláh would be mutilated and
permanently deprived of that hereditary principle ... Without such an
institution the integrity of the Faith would be imperilled, and the
stability of the entire fabric would be gravely endangered. Its prestige
would suffer, the means required to enable it to take a long, an
uninterrupted view over a series of generations would be completely lacking,
and the necessary guidance to define the sphere of the legislative action of
its elected representatives would be totally withdrawn.
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 148)
Totally withdrawn Praiseworthy, not partially or in part.
The Universal House of Justice through It's actions and words has proven
that what Shoghi said is true.
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121812934....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are you ... glad ... or agreed ... or both?
Randy Burns
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1121812934....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > > The year what happened?
> >
> > Exactly, see I told you so.
>
>just the opposite of what I clearly meant.
I'm glad I could clear up your misapprehensions.
Rod
<cli...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:1121694252.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I love American triumphalism.
Your high flying B52 bullshit gets its arse kicked by a little bloke
with a sharpened bamboo pole....
And you dedicate the next thirty years to making movies about
your heroic victory over people who never had a just cause
and never fired a true shot.
Macro or micro. then or now ...you are deaf, dumb and blind
to the POV of others....the only voice you can hear is yours.
PP PL
> totalitarianism; the happy medium is conscientious liberty; a liberty that
> refuses to compromise justice and equity even in matters of faith, in
> matters of religion.
This seems to be opposite of what Baha'u'llah said: that True faith
and True justice and equity are always in harmony.
> Yes it is possible for the Universal House of Justice to commit abuse and
> generate abusive commands. It has already done so in It's attempt to
> reintroduce religious practices that Baha'u'llah Himself removed as to the
> dividing of humanity "the evil tree" from "the pure tree".
I don't see that the Universal House of Justice, through the counselors
and auxiliary board members, has done anything different from what the
Hands of the Cause did under the guidance of the Founders.
> "In this way His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh expressed the oneness of humankind
> whereas in all religious teachings of the past, the human world has been
> represented as divided into two parts, one known as the people of the Book
> of God or the pure tree and the other the people of infidelity and error or
> the evil tree. The former were considered as belonging to the faithful and
> the others to the hosts of the irreligious and infidel; one part of humanity
> the recipients of divine mercy and the other the object of the wrath of
> their Creator. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh removed this by proclaiming the
> oneness of the world of humanity and this principle is specialized in His
> teachings for He has submerged all mankind in the sea of divine generosity.
> Some are asleep; they need to be awakened. Some are ailing; they need to be
> healed. Some are immature as children; they need to be trained. But all are
> recipients of the bounty and bestowals of God."
>
> (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 246)
I do not see a contradiction between this selection and the actions of
the Counselors or the Hands of the Cause of God to protect the Faith.
> Therefore, in the light of the warnings of the Guardian, the Auxiliary
> Boards for Protection should keep "constantly" a "watchful eye" on those
> "who are known to be enemies, or to have been put out of the Faith",
> discreetly investigate their activities, alert intelligently the friends to
> the opposition inevitably to come, explain how each crisis in God's Faith
> has always proved to be a blessing in disguise, and prepare them for the
> "dire contest which is destined to range the Army of Light against the
> forces of darkness".
>
> (The Universal House of Justice, The Institution of the Counsellors, p. 16)
These tasks are not any different from those of the Hands of the Cause
of God and others appointed and guided by Abdu'l-Baha.
...
Larry, so are you saying that some of the things that Abdu'l-Baha did
are not applicable to our day?
Randy Burns
in our next six wars?
Randy
--
"Rod" <rwi...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:42de...@news.comindico.com.au...
Steve Marshall
>Say, I thought we already had a deal with your down_underers to support US
>in our next six wars?
You must be confusing "no-nukez" NZ with let-me-lick-your-arstralians.
Not everyone "down-under" got sucked in by Bush. NZ has an election
coming up and the centre-right party is currently being embarrassed by
reminders from the centre-left party that it supported sending combat
troops to Iraq.
Rod
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1c6ud15m4m4giql07...@4ax.com...
> "Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote:
>
> >Say, I thought we already had a deal with your down_underers to support
US
> >in our next six wars?
>
> You must be confusing "no-nukez" NZ with let-me-lick-your-arstralians.
> Not everyone "down-under" got sucked in by Bush.
Fair suck of the sav guys! Australia will clearly follow any bloody fly by
night imperialists power into any fight with anybody anytime
Shit, we will even take on Johnny Turk for the British.
Point is....when we get our arse kicked we don't celebrate or spin
Our Glorious Victory...We look around and wonder who's next ;-)
Seriously....I'm not flag waving or having a go at the septic tanks ;-)....
I'm indicating that there are distinct cultural traits that need to be
considered
and understood as we rush headlong towards Wun Whirl Order.
The first generation of Australian movies was about battlers or 'loser's
'having a go' in the face of disaster or impossible odds....winning was not
important.....playing fair and having a crack at it was. (Ned Kelly,
Breaker Morrant, Galipolly, The Castle etc etc...)
None of these movies ever made it in the US....no 'winners'....the US
audience just didn't get it......until Mad Max.....he's perceived as
triumphant.
(As has been pointed out before...humour in the US is largely based on
one party winning out over another.......Oz, NZ, Ireland and Scotland
prefer the 'play on words'.)
America is a culture based on the primacy of winning/triumph....and
that is sometimes but not always a good thing.
Oz is (was?) a culture based on 'having a go', 'a fair go' and being
a 'battler' even if and when success was unattainable.
Finnegan's Wake
> These tasks are not any different from those of the Hands of the Cause
> of God and others appointed and guided by Abdu'l-Baha.
>
>
> are not applicable to our day?
I think he's just remarking how organised religion seems to be organised by
fascists bastards!
Steve Marshall
>The first generation of Australian movies was about battlers or 'loser's
>'having a go' in the face of disaster or impossible odds....winning was not
>important.....playing fair and having a crack at it was. (Ned Kelly,
>Breaker Morrant, Galipolly, The Castle etc etc...)
Not to mention Rabbit-proof Fence, Moulin Rouge, The Dish, Mr
Reliable, Shine, No Worries, Muriel's Wedding, Priscilla, Queen of the
Desert, Babe, Spotswood, Strictly Ballroom and My Brilliant Career
>Oz is (was?) a culture based on 'having a go', 'a fair go' and being
>a 'battler' even if and when success was unattainable.
Ya loser. Actually, Rod has "loser" tattooed on his chest. Um, that's
not strictly true. He has "looser" written there. The tattooist
apologised and Rod refused to pay for the extra letter.
Rod will say I made this up, but I felt the pain when that tattooing
was done. Now I'd got the Rod off my back (literally), i can reveal
that I misinformed the tattooist as to the spelling of "loser". Rod's
lucky he didn't believe me when I said L-O-U-S-E.
Rod
> "Rod" <rwi...@dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >The first generation of Australian movies was about battlers or 'loser's
> >'having a go' in the face of disaster or impossible odds....winning was
not
> >important.....playing fair and having a crack at it was. (Ned Kelly,
> >Breaker Morrant, Galipolly, The Castle etc etc...)
>
> Not to mention Rabbit-proof Fence, Moulin Rouge, The Dish, Mr
> Reliable, Shine, No Worries, Muriel's Wedding, Priscilla, Queen of the
> Desert, Babe, Spotswood, Strictly Ballroom and My Brilliant Career
I believe by this stage we had worked out the winner 'formula'.
I'm grateful you left out Crocodile Dundee..........Doh!
> >Oz is (was?) a culture based on 'having a go', 'a fair go' and being
> >a 'battler' even if and when success was unattainable.
>
> Ya loser. Actually, Rod has "loser" tattooed on his chest.
And the 'W' tatooed on each of your butt cheeks has proved
to "WoW the girls" as you intended?
Steve Marshall
>And the 'W' tatooed on each of your butt cheeks has proved
>to "WoW the girls" as you intended?
No, it didn't have the effect I hoped for. Nor did stuffing some
rolled up socks down my speedos... ...until I learned to stuff them
down the FRONT of my speedos.
I had the two big "W"s converted into this...
so I could do "woman smoking a cigar" impressions.
Rod
I seem to recall reports of a Duneden drive by near Regional
Convention....witnesses reported a big eyed woman, smoking
a cigar and shouting "It's a trap! It's a trap! Your all being
discretely counselled"!!!
sma...@jam.rr.com
> Convention....
Do they even know what drive-bys are in NZ?
Steve Marshall
>I seem to recall reports of a Duneden drive by near Regional
>Convention....witnesses reported a big eyed woman, smoking
>a cigar and shouting "It's a trap! It's a trap! Your all being
>discretely counselled"!!!
I'll have to study asses' conduct in my area.
Steve Marshall
>Do they even know what drive-bys are in NZ?
Of course we do. That's when you drive by someone's place with your
bare arse hanging out the car window, and you toot the horn to make
sure the residents look at you.
We're civilized.
Randy Burns
>
>
> Oz is (was?) a culture based on 'having a go', 'a fair go' and being
> a 'battler' even if and when success was unattainable.
(Groan). Rod, that is so last century, man! This is the Bush era! Like the
man said : Bring 'um on! Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
Mad Max will be his VP (and will be "in character" for the duration of the
administration, even if it goes the full two terms!)
Have a good laugh.
Randy
sma...@jam.rr.com
Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
Uh,Randy. The Terminator isn't eligible. You have to be a native.
rwi...@dodo.com.au
I can't mate....it looks like a credible future.
Ammending the constitution for Arnie will no doubt be
a game show competition.
Good luck
Rod
Randy Burns
news:1122003706....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
>
> Uh,Randy. The Terminator isn't eligible. You have to be a native.
>
A minor technicality.
PaulHammond
Randy Burns wrote:
> "Rod" <rwi...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:42df...@news.comindico.com.au...
> >
> >
> > Oz is (was?) a culture based on 'having a go', 'a fair go' and being
> > a 'battler' even if and when success was unattainable.
>
> (Groan). Rod, that is so last century, man! This is the Bush era! Like the
> man said : Bring 'um on! Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
Seems like a peculiar way to refer to Mrs Clinton!
> Mad Max will be his VP (and will be "in character" for the duration of the
> administration, even if it goes the full two terms!)
>
> Have a good laugh.
yeah, that's what American elections are all about - black
comedy and loads and loads of dollars spent on negative
campaigning. Vote Sideshow BOB!
Paul
sma...@jam.rr.com
Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
>
> Seems like a peculiar way to refer to Mrs Clinton!
She never could get any respect.
> yeah, that's what American elections are all about - black
> comedy and loads and loads of dollars spent on negative
> campaigning. Vote Sideshow BOB!
Almost as fun as watching Parliament when it meets with the Prime
Minister!
Steve Marshall
> Uh,Randy. The Terminator isn't eligible. You have to be a native.
Make Austria a US state then. That kind of unification worked for the
Nazis under an earlier Austrian-born leader.
Randy Burns
"Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:cd43e1hthf0osu11f...@4ax.com...
Good idea, Steve. Let's just confuse them with Puerto Rico or something.
Who said we can't have lebensraum and eat it too?
Rod
> Someone said:
> > Uh,Randy. The Terminator isn't eligible. You have to be a native.
>
> Make Austria a US state then.
It's Aust*ral*ia Steve!
Australia!
God your thick!
And hell no.....We will not be assimilated.
> That kind of unification worked for the
> Nazis under an earlier Austrian-born leader.
Yea....blame us for everything!
Finnegan's Wake
<sma...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1122066160....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Our next President will be The Terminator Himself!
> >
> > Seems like a peculiar way to refer to Mrs Clinton!
>
> She never could get any respect.
She could take up cigars!
> > yeah, that's what American elections are all about - black
> > comedy and loads and loads of dollars spent on negative
> > campaigning. Vote Sideshow BOB!
>
> Almost as fun as watching Parliament when it meets with the Prime
> Minister!
That is when the PM *attends* the House!
The Commons sit whether or not the PM is there - he, or his deputy, attends
for Prime Minister's Questions, when the back benchers get a chance to put
him through his paces.
BTW see if you can spot the sycophants or those lunging for promotion - it
should be easy for Bahai meetings are full of them ... whereas, in the
Commons, there are a few (like the Beast) who have a healthy disrespect for
Government!
>
Heather Carr-Rowe
You said: "This seems to be opposite of what Baha'u'llah said: that True
faith and True justice and equity are always in harmony."
Exactly true. Which means that a faith which allows for or councils
injustice or inequity is not representative of True faith, of God's one true
religion.
So when the Service of Women paper was released in New Zealand in the mid-
eighties and the Universal House of Justice quickly clamped down on the
independent investigation into the truth of full equity within the Baha'i
Faith it was not an expression of True faith, of God's Universality, but an
expression of human faith, of earthly limitations.
So to with the Universal House of Justice's counselling of Baha'is to
search out enemies amongst their own coreligionists; a 'religious' practice
which has created an atmosphere of distrust, paranioia, and disunity within
the Baha'i community where Baha'is now fear to express themselves openly and
conscientiously.
Faith in the Universal House of Justice now trumps Faith in Baha'u'llah and
His Teachings.
To extend the familial disunity that Abdu'l-Baha' and Shoghi Effendi
experienced within their own families and family members to the entire
Baha'i Community has been the single most unwise folly of the Universal
House of Justice. This one error has poisoned the entire Baha'i Faith and
made of It a cult, a spiritually unhealthy place to be.
As Abdu'l-Baha' has said: " Any religion which is not a cause of love and
unity is no religion. "
In the last four years I have personally read the cases of hundreds of
Baha'is who, because of the poisonous and paranoid atmosphere created by the
Universal House of Justice in setting It's own coreligionists against one
another in a Savak like manner, have been forced from the Baha'i Faith
broken hearted and disillusioned. As Abdu'l-Baha' said such a religion that
so " becomes a cause of dislike, hatred and division, " is a religion that a
person is better off without.
Baha'u'llah removed the past religious practice of dividing humanity the
"pure tree" from the " evil tree". The Universal House of Justice councils
Baha'is to see ememies within their own ranks as well as the seeing of
humanity as divided "the army of light" from " the forces of darkness". The
contradiction is not only obvious it is glaring.
If you cannot see the contradiction between what Baha'u'llah has removed
and what the Universal House of Justice has sought to reinstate, I pray for
your eyes to be opened to what is more obvious than the nose on one's own
face..
Again I reiterate: to extend the familial disunity that Abdu'l-Baha' and
Shoghi Effendi experienced within their own families to the whole of the
Baha'i Community has been the undoing of the whole purpose of the Baha'i
Faith, the whole purpose of the Cause; which is to foster the regarding of
all humanity as being ' as one soul ' with one another and not a return to
the same old, same old, division of humanity the "evil tree" from the "pure
tree"; a backwards and superstitious religious practice that Baha'u'llah
removed for good reason; which the Universal House of Justice has sought to
reinstate out of pure ignorance.
There is only us, we are them, 'as one soul '.
Yours Larry Rowe
"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)
Heather Carr-Rowe
My favorite Aussie Movie is Walkabout.
Not sure what it says about Aussies though.
Yours Larry
Seegar
I had to laugh at this one:
Walkabout, excerpts from a review:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/630427081X/104-3663907-7559146?v=glance
"Eventually, the Aboriginal either dies of bordom or kills himself
because he has realised what this movie is going to do to his acting
career. The girl and white boy don't say much about it and wander
around some more.
Mysteriously, the girl ends up back in Sydney. We don't know how. We
aren't told and we don't care by now because we are so bored.
Like most Australian movies, this has good cinematography, and nothing
else going for it. It helps explain why the Australian film industry
can only survive by offering high income earners enormous government
tax deductions to flush their investment dollars down the toilet. It
also helps to explain why the public watch very few Australian
movies."
Heather Carr-Rowe
The cinematography is great in this movie and I suppose it is a certain
feel that the cinematography creates rather than the story line that is most
interesting about the film.
I see underlying themes such as the relationship between aboriginal peoples
and white colonizers in the film as well.
Besides the girl is gorgeous, lol.
Yours Larry
Seegar
<ro...@northwestel.net> wrote:
>Howdy Seegar,
>
> The cinematography is great in this movie and I suppose it is a certain
>feel that the cinematography creates rather than the story line that is most
>interesting about the film.
Larry,
I understand. It's like a song. The lyrics might be inane, but if the
melody and harmony are beautiful one can easily ignore the lyrics and
have a good listening experience.
Peace,
Chris
PaulHammond
Rod wrote:
> "Steve Marshall" <asm...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:cd43e1hthf0osu11f...@4ax.com...
> > Someone said:
> > > Uh,Randy. The Terminator isn't eligible. You have to be a native.
> >
> > Make Austria a US state then.
>
> It's Aust*ral*ia Steve!
> Australia!
> God your thick!
>
AusTRAlia, AusTRAlia, AusTRALia, we love ya.
"Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed!"
http://sidehack.gweep.net/~jer/philosophers.html
> > That kind of unification worked for the
> > Nazis under an earlier Austrian-born leader.
>
> Yea....blame us for everything!
It's all that Shane Warne's fault - blond streaky-haired
little wrist-spinner!
Paul