Not A Cult
errol9
Karen the host on belief net and subscriber to TRB you have become famous
with your name in one of Britain's National sunday newspaper articles by Ben
Whitford it has inspired me to start this new thread.............Errol
If Karen or any other poster wants to answer this article below his e/mail
address is b.whi...@fastmail.fm.................Errol
Not a cult
"Paradoxically, despite their liberal scriptures, Bahai has been accused of
fundamentalism and extremism, especially in the US, where ex-Bahai Karen
Bacquet claims the belief in unity led to "severe limits" being placed on
followers' freedom of expression. "It would be wrong to regard the Bahai
faith entirely as a cult," she writes, but it "can perhaps be called"
cult-like".
A spokeswoman for the Bahais of the UK strongly rejected such claims,
saying: "We are nothing like a cult... We are recognised as one of the nine
major religions in the UK; there is nobody of legitimacy who would call us a
cult."
Online feature: Dr Kelly's faith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Suicide is always a tragedy'
The little-known Bahai religion has been catapulted to national attention by
the Kelly affair. But followers fear their religion could be misrepresented
as a pro-suicide cult. So what do they really believe?
Ben Whitford
Sunday July 27, 2003
Dr Kelly's conversion to the Bahai faith four years before his suicide has
catapulted a previously obscure religion into the media spotlight. Now some
adherents, frustrated by speculation that the religion's stance on suicide
might have played a part in Kelly's death, argue that their beliefs are
being misrepresented.
"Dr Kelly was very active in Bahai at the local level," recalled Barney
Leith, the Secretary of the Bahai National Spiritual Assembly. "What he
found in the Bahai faith was spiritual sustenance from praying with others."
Kelly discovered the Bahai faith in 1999 while working for the UN in New
York, and on his return to Oxfordshire was welcomed into a small but active
Bahai community. Dr Kelly became treasurer of the Abingdon branch, which was
involved in a number of educational and charity projects, including
fundraising for an orphanage in Honduras.
"We as Bahai will always love and respect Dr Kelly," Mr Leith said. "I knew
him, although not very well, and I always found him to be an honourable man
and a man of integrity."
According to Bahai scriptures, a man who takes his own life "will be
immersed in the ocean of pardon and forgiveness and will become the
recipient of bounty and favour." The phrase has been widely quoted in the
past week as evidence that the religion supports suicide, but Bahai
followers are keen to point to other passages that, they say, make it clear
"the soul is a precious gift for us from God".
Mr Leith called claims in the tabloid press that their faith supports
suicide "off the wall" and "really extraordinary", saying: "We do not in any
way, shape or form condone suicide. Suicide is always a tragedy, and there's
no doubt about that," he said. But, he explained, the texts must be taken in
the context of the Bahai view of the afterlife. Bahais do not believe in
hell, and say everyone has the opportunity for redemption. In any case, Mr
Leith insisted: "We still don't know for sure whether Dr Kelly did kill
himself."
He confirmed that Bahais were discussing funeral plans with Dr Kelly's
family. "Bahais locally are in touch with the family and are offering
whatever support they can to Mrs Kelly," he said. However, he denied that
the family, who are members of the Church of England, would come under any
pressure to give Dr Kelly a Bahai funeral. "We're working very closely with
the family to have a funeral in accordance with the family's needs and Dr
Kelly's life," he said.
The beginnings of Bahai
The Bahai faith is one of the youngest world religions, established in
Persia in the mid-19th century. Mirza Ali Mohammed, a young Persian
businessman, declared himself the Bab ('gate'), a link to God equal to the
prophet Mohammed.
Neither violent clashes with the Persian Shah's Islamic government, nor the
Bab's eventual execution by firing squad, could crush the new religion. His
successor took the title Baha'u'llah ('Glory to God') and spent the next 40
years in exile in Israel, where the religion is now based.
Despite his exile he developed a strong following, and his supporters became
the first Bahais. It is from his teachings, as interpreted by his son
Abdu'l-Baha, that the modern Bahai faith derives.
Bahai has faced a century and a half of persecution, notably in Iran, where
hundreds of thousands of Bahais have been martyred and where Bahais are
still considered "unprotected infidels" and denied legal, property or
employment rights. Of the 6000 Bahais in the UK, up to two-fifths are of
Iranian descent.
The religion flourished during the civil rights boom of the 1960s and 1970s,
and now claims up to five million followers, although some independent
researchers set the figure somewhat lower.
Bahai beliefs
Bahais believe that people receive only the spiritual guidance they are
ready for. Other prophets, from Buddha to Christ, are seen as messengers
from God, but are overshadowed by the message of Baha'u'llah.
Bahai's principles are strikingly liberal, considering they date from the
Victorian era and have not been updated since, promoting racial and gender
equality, redistribution of wealth, universal democracy and education for
all. But alcohol and drugs are banned. And like other religions it struggles
with modern attitudes to sexuality. Physical intimacy (including kissing)
before marriage, active homosexuality and adultery are all banned.
Modern followers maintain close ties with the United Nations and work for
world peace and unity. "The key value we work for is that humankind is a
single race with a single destiny," said Mr Leith. Nonetheless, Mr Leith
said, "Baha'u'llah strongly promoted the idea of collective security. We're
not pacifists - you have to work for justice."
The Bahai scriptures even seem to condone pre-emptive war in places, saying
that "a conquest can be a praiseworthy thing, and there are times when war
becomes the powerful basis of peace". However, Bahais shy away from
expressing direct opinions on the conflict in Iraq. "We are political with a
small p," a spokeswoman explained. "We vote and participate in government,
but we don't get involved in partisan politics. We find it very divisive."
How to be Bahai
Although Bahais elect national leaders they have no official priesthood.
Services are usually held in followers' homes, although local groups join
together to rent halls for special occasions.
The main festival is a feast held every 19 days. Services, led by members of
the congregation, begin with prayer, music and song, progress to a
discussion of community affairs and finish with a party or social gathering.
As important as the services are the followers' charity activities. "Work
and service are equivalent to worship," Mr Leith said. "Our faith has to
bear some fruit and do some good in the world."
British followers make voluntary donations to fund the national
organisation's three salaried officials, and also pay a "Right of God"
charity tithe of 19% on their surplus earnings "as a way of cleansing their
wealth".
"It's done without anybody coming round rapping on the door," said Mr Leith.
"It's a matter of personal conscience, but we regard it as a very important
thing."
British Bahais help to fund and manage local and global educational
initiatives, including schools and grassroots campaigns in Nepal and India.
"The Bahai are running projects all over the world, open to everybody,
empowering people to run their own lives," said Mr Leith.
"The world is full of differences, and we believe the world needs people to
work to bring others together," he said.
Not a cult
Paradoxically, despite their liberal scriptures, Bahai has been accused of
fundamentalism and extremism, especially in the US, where ex-Bahai Karen
Bacquet claims the belief in unity led to "severe limits" being placed on
followers' freedom of expression. "It would be wrong to regard the Bahai
faith entirely as a cult," she writes, but it "can perhaps be called
cult-like".
A spokeswoman for the Bahais of the UK strongly rejected such claims,
saying: "We are nothing like a cult... We are recognised as one of the nine
major religions in the UK; there is nobody of legitimacy who would call us a
cult."
Despite their efforts to avoid dissent, Bahai has been troubled by a number
of splinter groups, mostly American. Members of the largest recently said
the September 11 attacks were divine punishment for the sins of mainstream
Bahais and that war in Iraq marked the beginning of the Apocalypse.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/comment/0,13747,1006859,00.html
· Email: b.whi...@fastmail.fm
Karen Bacquet
Actually, my feelings are mixed: While it is gratifying that my
article has spread so far, they didn't really quote me accurately, and
it was out of context. In my article, I was at great pains to point out
that you can't draw a rigid line between "cult" and "non-cult". What I
actually said was that the Baha'i Faith was more towards the "cult-like"
end of this continuum -- along the lines of Jehovah's Witnesses in terms
of control, not Branch Davidians.
And I'm not an "ex-Baha'i".
Karen
errol9
on 27/7/03 5:03 am:
> Here's the response I wrote on Beliefnet, which I'm reproducing here:
>
> Actually, my feelings are mixed: While it is gratifying that my
> article has spread so far, they didn't really quote me accurately, and
> it was out of context. In my article, I was at great pains to point out
> that you can't draw a rigid line between "cult" and "non-cult". What I
> actually said was that the Baha'i Faith was more towards the "cult-like"
> end of this continuum -- along the lines of Jehovah's Witnesses in terms
> of control, not Branch Davidians.
>
> And I'm not an "ex-Baha'i".
Why dont you e/mail the reporter and tell him he reported you wrong. Tell
him you are angry at being called an ex-bahai and insist on being called an
unenrolled baha'i.
It's a bit like Baha'is who dont like their religion called Bahaism rather
than the Baha'i faith. Or me being called George when I want them to call me
Errol. We cant get everybody to agree with us all the time......Errrol
Karen Bacquet
>
>
> Why dont you e/mail the reporter and tell him he reported you wrong. Tell
> him you are angry at being called an ex-bahai and insist on being called an
> unenrolled baha'i.
I thought about it -- but realistically, he wasn't going to give me a
paragraph to explain my perspective. The reporter did, presumably, read
my CSJ article, and was trying to encapsulate it in the simplest way he
could. It's just that if you make it *too* simple, it's not quite
accurate. And, I'm not angry, really -- I understand why he wouldn't
add a sentence explaining that I'm an unenrolled Baha'i, or how I view
religious groups on a continuum of control. I think it's likely that
reporter is also aware of Juan's articles, and probably picked me to
quote, just because it would be easier -- and, of course, it contains
that media-sexy word "cult".
errol9
on 27/7/03 1:33 pm:
>
> I thought about it -- but realistically, he wasn't going to give me a
> paragraph to explain my perspective. The reporter did, presumably, read
> my CSJ article, and was trying to encapsulate it in the simplest way he
> could. It's just that if you make it *too* simple, it's not quite
> accurate. And, I'm not angry, really -- I understand why he wouldn't
> add a sentence explaining that I'm an unenrolled Baha'i, or how I view
> religious groups on a continuum of control. I think it's likely that
> reporter is also aware of Juan's articles, and probably picked me to
> quote, just because it would be easier -- and, of course, it contains
> that media-sexy word "cult".
Well then write and thank him for mentioning your name, and offer your
services again, and gently request if he uses your name again, you much
prefer to be called an un-enrolled bahai than an ex-baha'i as you still
believe in Baha'u'llah...............Errol
>
> Karen
***** Bahai Faith *****
--
Frederick Glaysher
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
----- Original Message -----
From: bahaice...@fglaysher.com
To: b.whi...@fastmail.fm
Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2003 10:20 AM
Subject: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Dr. David Kelly - Member of the Baha'i
Faith
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Dr. David Kelly - Member of the Baha'i Faith
The question that should be asked is did Dr. Kelly falsify his report
for the Baha'i Universal House of Justice in order to remove Sadam
from power and further a hidden agenda in Iraq and the Middle East
for the Baha'i community, which has wanted Baha'i property in Bagdad
returned for decades among other interests?
In response to your article about Dr. Kelly, I believe Professor Juan Cole,
of the University of Michigan's Department of History, has a website of
extensive and disturbing documentation that anyone interested in the
Baha'i Faith should be aware of, especially his article
"Fundamentalism in the Contemporary U.S. Baha'i Community,"
Religious Studies Review, Vol. 43, no. 3 (March, 2002):195-217:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai/2002/fundbhfn.htm
In his book Modernity and the Millennium, published by Columbia University
Press in 1998, Professor Cole observes the Baha'i administration has
increasingly come under the control of fundamentalists, "stressing
scriptural literalism . . . theocracy, censorship, intellectual intolerance,
and denying key democratic values (196)."
Karen Bacquet, "Enemies Within: Conflict and Control in the
Baha'i Community." Published in American Family Foundation's
Cultic Studies Journal, Volume 18, pp.109-140:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/bigquestions/enemies.html
For numerous other views, I also recommend the over 50 megabytes
of documentation on my own website, The Bahai Faith & Religious
Freedom of Conscience:
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Frederick Glaysher
5224 Aintree Rd.
Oakland Twp., MI 48306 USA
248-652-4982
The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience
http://www.fglaysher.com/bahaicensorship/
Eric Sloan
> the September 11 attacks were divine punishment for the sins of mainstream
> Bahais and that war in Iraq marked the beginning of the Apocalypse.
>
> http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/comment/0,13747,1006859,00.html
>
> · Email: b.whi...@fastmail.fm
I suppose he is referring to the group in Montana who follows that
pedophile Jensen. What a joke, they have about 5 or 10 followers now
(Maybe 15 by that's pushing it.)
Susan Maneck
>I suppose he is referring to the group in Montana who follows that
>pedophile Jensen. What a joke, they have about 5 or 10 followers now
>(Maybe 15 by that's pushing it.)
>
Dear Eric,
I think you are right about that. At one time the BUPC was the largest CB group
in America. But since Jensen died they have pretty much self-destructed. Neal
Chase went one way, claiming to a Guardian and their IBC went another way
eventually disintegrating entirely. I think the bulk of former members of th
BUPC that still consider themselves Baha'i joined Soghomonian's group.
warmest, Susan
http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Randy Burns
of his followers.
Cheers, Randy
--
Eric Sloan <trackru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bf8b1f36.0307...@posting.google.com...
Randy Burns
future date he will be aware of your true position.
Cheers, Randy
--
Karen Bacquet <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F23D49B...@tco.net...
Paul Hammond
> >
> >I suppose he is referring to the group in Montana who follows that
> >pedophile Jensen. What a joke, they have about 5 or 10 followers now
> >(Maybe 15 by that's pushing it.)
> >
>
> Dear Eric,
>
> I think you are right about that. At one time the BUPC was the largest CB group
> in America. But since Jensen died they have pretty much self-destructed. Neal
> Chase went one way, claiming to a Guardian and their IBC went another way
> eventually disintegrating entirely. I think the bulk of former members of th
> BUPC that still consider themselves Baha'i joined Soghomonian's group.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
You know, when I went and read that article, I assumed that
when they said "largest splinter group" they'd have been
talking about the Orthodox - my impression is that they
are the largest Remeyite remnants.
From someone who had read Karen's article, I would have
expected better research than that - but I guess he really
only did a little net surfing to spice his article up. That's
the only possible explanation for taking Jenson's group
and their pronouncements about September 11th so seriously.
Paul
Eric Sloan
> Jensen was a convicted rapist, not a pedophile. I don't know about the rest
> of his followers.
>
> Cheers, Randy
You're right Randy, although since he was convicted of molesting a
14-year-old wouldn't that make him a pedophile and rapist? However
we're forgetting his explanation. It was just a chiropractic free
Mason conspiracy. :0
> Dear Eric,
>
> I think you are right about that. At one time the BUPC was the largest CB group
> in America. But since Jensen died they have pretty much self-destructed. Neal
> Chase went one way, claiming to a Guardian and their IBC went another way
> eventually disintegrating entirely. I think the bulk of former members of th
> BUPC that still consider themselves Baha'i joined Soghomonian's group.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
> http://bahaistudies.net/susanmaneck/
> Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
> http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
Dear Susan,
Also in 1980 Leland Jensen specifically prophesied that 1/3 of the
worlds population would die after the Soviet Union nuked America.
After this false prophecy, most of his followers abandoned him. I
think Neal Chase is still at it, in 1997 he was on TV preaching the
end of the world.
Cal E. Rollins
I thought you said some time ago that you withdrew your membership from
the Faith. Would that not make you an ex-Baha'i? --Cal
Susan Maneck
>14-year-old wouldn't that make him a pedophile and rapist?
I'm pretty sure the charge he was conficted of "lewd and lascivious with a
minor."
It's pretty clear that this behavior continued long after Jensen's release from
prison. Quite a few former Jensenites have some horror stories to tell along
these lines. Definitely a dirty old man.
Susan Maneck
>
>You know, when I went and read that article, I assumed that
>when they said "largest splinter group" they'd have been
>talking about the Orthodox - my impression is that they
>are the largest Remeyite remnants.
Dear Paul,
They might be, but it is Neal Chase who has been insisting that he predicted
9-11 and it is divine chastisement. I think most of the rest of the Remeyites
have sort of gotten away from a lot of this apocalyptic stuff in recent years.
>From someone who had read Karen's article, I would have
>expected better research than that - but I guess he really
>only did a little net surfing to spice his article up.
Let me tell you from my own experience with reporters, what they call
'research' is a joke. They all operate under deadlines and just make a few
phone calls to get some good sound bites, that's about it."
>I guess he really
>only did a little net surfing to spice his article up. That's
>the only possible explanation for taking Jenson's group
>and their pronouncements about September 11th so seriously.
>
Probably.
warmest, Susan
Karen Bacquet
>
>>From someone who had read Karen's article, I would have
>
>>expected better research than that - but I guess he really
>>only did a little net surfing to spice his article up.
>
>
> Let me tell you from my own experience with reporters, what they call
> 'research' is a joke. They all operate under deadlines and just make a few
> phone calls to get some good sound bites, that's about it."
That's why after my initial reaction of "Hey, he got me wrong", I
figured "Forget it" -- That last paragraph was just a little blurb on
alternatives, not an exhaustive thing. The guy might not have even read
my article past the first few paragraphs. News writing is a whole
different kettle of fish from serious research, which is slow going.
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
miss calm
to be vegetarian and started to become rich and make trouble wherever they
live.
"***** Bahai Faith *****" <BI*P*G...@LIBERTY.COM> wrote in message
news:bg0ncu$ik9j4$1...@ID-75545.news.uni-berlin.de...
Pat Kohli
miss calm wrote:
> Bahai became a cult when they refused to follow the command of their Prophet
> to be vegetarian and started to become rich and make trouble wherever they
> live.
Please, would you quote that command from our prophet, which you refer to?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
I think she resigned from the community.
Someone usually believes that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for
this day, before they sign the declaration card and get enrolled in the
community.
Karen Bacquet
Pat Kohli wrote:
>
> "Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
>
>
>>Karen,
>>
>>I thought you said some time ago that you withdrew your membership from
>>the Faith. Would that not make you an ex-Baha'i? --Cal
>
>
> I think she resigned from the community.
>
> Someone usually believes that Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for
> this day, before they sign the declaration card and get enrolled in the
> community.
You know, guys, I've talked about my history, and my present status and
beliefs so often on this forum that if you don't know it by now, you
haven't been paying attention. I am an unenrolled Baha'i.
Susan Maneck
>> Bahai became a cult when they refused to follow the command of their
>Prophet
>> to be vegetarian and started to become rich and make trouble wherever they
>> live.
Hmmm. Sounds like a cultish thing to say.
Susan Maneck
>I think she resigned from the community.
>
She resigned from the Faith but then decided she still believed in Baha'u'llah
after all. But she didn't re-enroll because she didn't believe in the AO.
Karen Bacquet
Susan Maneck wrote:
>>I think she resigned from the community.
>>
>
>
> She resigned from the Faith but then decided she still believed in Baha'u'llah
> after all. But she didn't re-enroll because she didn't believe in the AO.
Or, to be more precise, I don't believe in some of the things the AO does.
Paul Hammond
> Bahai became a cult when they refused to follow the command of their Prophet
> to be vegetarian and started to become rich and make trouble wherever they
> live.
We've done this before, miss calm. Apparently you weren't paying
attention.
There is no command from Baha'u'llah that the Baha'is should be
vegetarian.
If you think I'm wrong, how about you come up with the explicit
text that so commands the Baha'is?
Paul
Ariamehr
I have seen this statement by you before without you providing any quotation
, I asked my Bahai friends and they say that vegetarianism is encouraged as
it is the natural diet for humans but it is not a law. Can you give me the
link or reference to your source.
Ariamehr enjoys the Kabob
"miss calm" <gree...@nospam.cat> wrote in message
news:bg4aop$crf$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Cal E. Rollins
I've been paying attention but never heard that you were not an
ex-Baha'i. I must have come to this list later. And Pat's comments
were so enigmatic as to confuse just about anybody. I thought an
unenrolled Baha'i was someone like Alison who was told by the
Administration or whoever that she had never been a Baha'i for whatever
reasons, although she and other folk thought she was. I thought an
ex-Baha'i was someone who no longer considered themselves a Baha'i. How
does your view of unenrolled differ from the condition of Alison? This
would be good to clarify for the public, since it will come up again
surrounding the Kelly controversy. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Why do you tag your comments with Mark Foster's website? Are you really
Mark Foster? Even Ol' Star didn't go that far. --Cal
Cal E. Rollins
Why was 'Abdu'l-Baha always feeding lamb and rice to Americans at His
table? Last thing I heard lamb was meat not vegetable. But you may be
confused. I know the French are when they present a tomato on your
plate and call it a dessert or look at a tomato and lettuce salad as an
abominable mix of veggie and fruit. Or the biblical folk now saying
that the fruit upon which Eve practiced our First Sin, the Apple, was
really a tomato. Baha'i's have got to eat veggies only? You are
confused. Ever tried a Solent Wafer? --Cal
Karen Bacquet
Cal,
An unenrolled Baha'i is, very simply, a believer in Baha'u'llah who is
not formally enrolled in the Baha'i Faith, no matter how they got that
way. The term applies whether you resigned, were disenrolled, or never
signed a card in the first place.
>
Pat Kohli
Karen Bacquet wrote:
Yeah, that was my impression, too. It seemed to me like I might try to explain
it for the benefit of the lurkers, who would otherwise be compelled to email
me.
> I am an unenrolled Baha'i.
Blessings!
Pat Kohli
"Cal E. Rollins" wrote:
Solent Red? They are made of the meat of the tomato: tomatoes.
QisQos
> >
> >I think she resigned from the community.
> >
>
> She resigned from the Faith but then decided she still believed in Baha'u'llah
> after all. But she didn't re-enroll because she didn't believe in the AO.
>
But isn't that the definition of a "covenant breaker" in the Bahai
religion? I mean if you believe Baha Allah is what he said he was,
then does it not stand to reason you have to accept his "covenant" as
it is called, and if Backet refuses acceptance of the bahaist
covenant, doesn't she qualify as a "CB"?
Just curious on how the BF maintains discipline - if any - among the
believers.
Qis
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
To be a Covenant Breaker one gets formally designated by an authoritative institution; it is not a matter
of individual initiative. Baha'u'llah may have declared Mirza Yahya a CB; I'm not sure. I think 'Abdu'l
Baha declared Muhammad Ali, and Ibraheem Kheirella as CBs; it was not really something that a pedestrian
Baha'i, even one as prominent as Mason Remey, was to do. When C. Mason Remey tried to have some Baha'is
expelled as CBs, 'Abdu'l Baha vetoed him, and directed that the NSAs would not do that. Though the "Will
and Testament" directed the Hands to expell CBs, it was something which Shoghi Effendi alone exercised when
he was the Guardian.
These days, with the departure of the Hands, perhaps the UHJ would declare someone a CB, if it was
appropriate they be expelled. I think it is unlikely that Karen would be declared a CB.
Freethought110
> way. The term applies whether you resigned, were disenrolled, or never
> signed a card in the first place.
In other words, a new baha'i sect, much like the Orthodox or Jensenite baha'is.
Freethought110
the reason you state, i.e. vegetarianism.
"miss calm" <gree...@nospam.cat> wrote in message news:<bg4aop$crf$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>...
miss calm
"Ariamehr" <Aria...@bacheh-tehroon.com> wrote in message
news:yQtVa.13350$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
> Miss Calm,
> I have seen this statement by you before without you providing any
quotation
> , I asked my Bahai friends and they say that vegetarianism is encouraged
as
> it is the natural diet for humans but it is not a law. Can you give me the
> link or reference to your source.
Just been looking through my books Ariamehr but I cant seem to find the
text, it was a work of bah'uallah. Anyway, if you eat meat you will go to
hell. If you are not Rahman to the animals then you cannot expect God to be
rahman to you when the time of your judgement comes.
Ariamehr
please provide the exact quotation not what you think it might be as I
believe that Bahais don't believe in the physical heaven or hell to start
with ! Rahman is one of the attributes of God and rahm is the word to use
for the act iself.
Ariamehr
"miss calm" <gree...@nospam.cat> wrote in message
news:bg8acn$gm3$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
QisQos
> QisQos wrote:
> These days, with the departure of the Hands, perhaps the UHJ would declare someone a CB, if it was
> appropriate they be expelled. I think it is unlikely that Karen would be declared a CB.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB? It
certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
male in a position of leadership, which seems to be 99 % of the
problem with most bahaist women dissenters from what I can see.
If Baha Allah or Abdul Baha said "no women on the UHJ" then that's the
way it IS - to then "believe" in Baha Allah and then say he did not
really mean to say that women should not be on the UHJ is just plain
hypocritical: it is like the situation with divorce - Jesus Christ
himself forbade divorce, yet England's entire protestant "reformation"
started over Henry VIII desire for divorce to marry the "goggle eyed
whore", Anne Boleyn. But I digress, suffice to say, since that time
Protestants have been picking and choosing which scriptures mean
something to them and which thy will ignore - much in the same way
Karen Bacquet is doing. That seems to merit some official declaration
of anathema, would it not? So why is the UHJ so soft on these
"dissenters" when in fact their only agenda appears to be to remake
the BF in a distinctly feminist American, 1960's, liberal format.
Qis qos
Eric Stetson
The potential is there for the unenrolled to eventually turn into a
sect, especially if there are enough of them to start meeting together
in communities outside the internet.
Best,
Eric
Brian Walker
> "Ariamehr" <Aria...@bacheh-tehroon.com> wrote in message
> news:yQtVa.13350$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
>
>>Miss Calm,
>>I have seen this statement by you before without you providing any
>
> quotation
>
>>, I asked my Bahai friends and they say that vegetarianism is encouraged
>
> as
>
>>it is the natural diet for humans but it is not a law. Can you give me the
>>link or reference to your source.
>
>
> Just been looking through my books Ariamehr but I cant seem to find the
> text, it was a work of bah'uallah. Anyway, if you eat meat you will go to
> hell. If you are not Rahman to the animals then you cannot expect God to be
> rahman to you when the time of your judgement comes.
I have searched - and you are right. It is nowhere to be found. The
reason for that is that it has neither been said nor written. Nowhere is
the concept of "going to hell if you eat meat" said, written, or even
mentioned in passing.
Brian
Randy Burns
Randy Burns
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03073...@posting.google.com...
miss calm
But I would say to you that if your prophet was a vegetarian then if you are
a good murad of your Murshad then will you not try to emulate his example?
"Ariamehr" <Aria...@bacheh-tehroon.com> wrote in message
news:ldPVa.13523$cJ5....@www.newsranger.com...
Brent Reed
>
> > sma...@aol.com (Susan Maneck ) wrote in message news:<20030729010903...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> > > >
> > > >I think she resigned from the community.
> > > >
> > >
> > > She resigned from the Faith but then decided she still believed in Baha'u'llah
> > > after all. But she didn't re-enroll because she didn't believe in the AO.
> > >
> >
> > But isn't that the definition of a "covenant breaker" in the Bahai
> > religion? I mean if you believe Baha Allah is what he said he was,
> > then does it not stand to reason you have to accept his "covenant" as
> > it is called, and if Backet refuses acceptance of the bahaist
> > covenant, doesn't she qualify as a "CB"?
> >
> > Just curious on how the BF maintains discipline - if any - among the
> > believers.
> >
>
> To be a Covenant Breaker one gets formally designated by an authoritative institution; it is not a matter
> of individual initiative. Baha'u'llah may have declared Mirza Yahya a CB; I'm not sure. I think 'Abdu'l
> Baha declared Muhammad Ali, and Ibraheem Kheirella as CBs; it was not really something that a pedestrian
> Baha'i, even one as prominent as Mason Remey, was to do. When C. Mason Remey tried to have some Baha'is
> expelled as CBs, 'Abdu'l Baha vetoed him, and directed that the NSAs would not do that. Though the "Will
> and Testament" directed the Hands to expell CBs, it was something which Shoghi Effendi alone exercised when
> he was the Guardian.
Pat,
I just wanted to correct something you've said that is completely
wrong, and needs to be cleared up, lest there be any misunderstanding.
Yes, it is true that the Hands were given the authority to expel
Covenenant-breakers. This is written in the Will and Testament. But
to say that they were given the authority to expel Covenant-breakers
without mentioning that it was limited could amount to "interpolating
and falsifying the words and verses of the Sacred Texts (W&T, Chapter
6, p. 6)[...,] one of 'Abdu'l-Baha's accusations against
Covenant-breakers who he said were also the ones who would use unity
as an excuse to violate the Covenant. What 'Abdu'l-Baha' said is that
the "Hands must be ever watchful and so SOON AS THEY FIND ANYONE
BEGINNING *TO OPPOSE AND PROTEST AGAINST THE GUARDIAN OF THE CAUSE OF
GOD* cast him out from the congregation of the people of Baha[...]
(W&T, Chap 17, p. 12)."
>
> These days, with the departure of the Hands, perhaps the UHJ would declare someone a CB, if it was
> appropriate they be expelled.
"These days"? How? Where is the authority?
I think it is unlikely that Karen would be declared a CB.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
Brent Madison Reed
Heart of the Baha'i Faith
Founder and Moderator
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/heartofthebahaifaith
Ariamehr
again you are losing your cool ! You either accept that you are just writing
BS or provide the proof since you have been saying it for a long time and
upon my checking with my friends they claim otherwise. by the way please
refrain from using Persian or Arabic words that you have no clue what they
mean ! it is morid not murad and Murshed not Murshad. Stick to the issue and
provide the proof .
Ariamehr
"miss calm" <gree...@nospam.cat> wrote in message
news:bg91qr$thb$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
miss calm
> miss calm,
> again you are losing your cool ! You either accept that you are just
writing
> BS or provide the proof since you have been saying it for a long time and
> upon my checking with my friends they claim otherwise. by the way please
> refrain from using Persian or Arabic words that you have no clue what they
> mean ! it is morid not murad and Murshed not Murshad. Stick to the issue
and
> provide the proof .
Yes, sorry I used those words, they dont describe the (lack of) spiritual
relationship between bahais and their Prophet.
Pat Kohli
miss calm wrote:
> Sorry Ariamehr, I must have given that text away to someone or mislaid it.
> But I would say to you that if your prophet was a vegetarian then if you are
> a good murad of your Murshad then will you not try to emulate his example?
>
>
That makes sense.
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
>
QisQos
> A typical closet fundamentalist Baha'i pretending to be a Catholic.
>
> --
>
Patrick said on the other thread that this is a Bahai list and to stay
on Bahai topics, so I am trying to stay on Bahai topics. Now, just
because i can argue against the so-called "liberal" faction
represented by people like Cole, BacQuet, the Marshal's, Glaysher,
etc., that does not mean that I have any sympathy with teh Bahai
cause.
However, liberalism itself, as a stream of thought originating with
the so-called European Enlightenment is a common enemy, or so it would
seem.
The problem is though, that the "conservative" or Haifan bahai thing
is still steepd in liberalism, so what to do?
Either way, if you believe in a revealed religion, then one has to
understand that the doctrines of that revelation are above argument.
Now, in your religion, Abdul Baha said no women on the UHJ ...EVER.
Being as he was the "infallib;e" interpreter of his gather's religion,
then it really makes all of the squalling by Bacquet and crew
pointless. I mean then we are to the point of picking and choosing
what one wishes to believe and what one does not.
In catholicism we call such persons "Cafeteria Catholics" as a sort of
buffet style faith, whatever makes one "feel good" today.
So in Buffet-style bahaism, you have a long list of whiners all
complaining taht their cherished sacred cow - women's rights, civil
rights, New Age, esperanto, veganism or whatever is not getting its
proper due from the powers and principalities in High Places.
In some ways I feel sorry for the poor bahai who is trying to make his
religion make sense with this chorus of feminazis and liberalists
raising such a ruckus all of the time.
Now how can you convince other's of your belief in the "truth" of baha
Allah's "revelation" if you have a bunch of monkeys making public
monkey business.
Now what is Bacquet's real schtick here? She is a woman, obviously
thinks herself bright, and is P.O.ed because no matter how smart she
may be in her own estimation, she will never be on the UHJ because she
is a woman. the BF is not being run the way she sees fit so she is
going to start a sect called "Unenrolled Bahais", that is bahais who
believe in Baha Allah, but don't want to accept authority. Do your own
thing, let it all hang out, no patriarchical males for her!
We have similar sorts in Christianity, we call them protestants. Just
drive down any main street strip mall in America and you will seee
every sort of preaching mission store front "church" , all founded by
some minister who is thinks his "personal" interpretation of the
Baah-bull is better than the Church he came from. He may even have a
"theology" degree from a more or less accredited baaa-bull college.
nevertheless, like Bacquet, he rebels against authority and has
decided to preach the God of his own image.
So where does that leave us...I am rambling now, but see, bahaism as I
am told at firesides, set itself up so that it would not have any
sectarian sects, or cultic cults, and taht the covenant ensures a true
authoritative bahai World Faith, problem is, there is no limit to
human perversity and regardless of what your founders say, people like
the talisman's are going to set up their own covenant anyway.
QisQos
miss calm
>
> miss calm wrote:
>
> > Sorry Ariamehr, I must have given that text away to someone or mislaid
it.
> > But I would say to you that if your prophet was a vegetarian then if you
are
> > a good murad of your Murshad then will you not try to emulate his
example?
> >
>
> >
>
> That makes sense.
>
> Best wishes!
> - Pat
> kohli at ameritel.net
Thank you Pat, Bahu'allahs followers are not worthy to follow him.
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F271EFC...@ameritel.net>...
> > QisQos wrote:
>
> > These days, with the departure of the Hands, perhaps the UHJ would declare someone a CB, if it was
> > appropriate they be expelled. I think it is unlikely that Karen would be declared a CB.
> >
> > Best wishes!
> > - Pat
> > kohli at ameritel.net
>
> Now why do you doubt the UHJ would declare Karen Backet a CB? It
> certainly seems like she is gunning for the job. Her material sounds
> like it was written by the typical feminazi who can't stand having any
> male in a position of leadership, which seems to be 99 % of the
> problem with most bahaist women dissenters from what I can see.
>
I hope I've adequately answered this in the other message.
>
> If Baha Allah or Abdul Baha said "no women on the UHJ" then that's the
> way it IS - to then "believe" in Baha Allah and then say he did not
> really mean to say that women should not be on the UHJ is just plain
One at a time. When you were young, you were raised with a certain orientation, perhaps believing that
Jesus Christ would come back at the end of the world, when the atmosphere was getting peeled away with a
great wind, like papers blowing in a breeze. Over the years, your views change, and still this notion
lies dormant in your mind. Maybe when you are fully grown, you embrace it, and return to the warm
breast of the Mother Church.
Some Baha'is have a predisposition, that women and men are equal. It runs through their minds, like
nerve tissue. When something in the BF is about gender, it fits into this model. Yet, the statements,
as currently understood by the generality of the friends, do not seem to fit. A few Baha'is assemble an
alternative explanation (return to the mother breast). If a Baha'i sees this notion, before they see
the texts, there is a tendency for them to interpret the texts, into the prior conclusion. I don't
think this is such an outrageous thing.
>
> hypocritical: it is like the situation with divorce - Jesus Christ
> himself forbade divorce,
There may have been a qualifier, like 'except in cases of adultery'.
> yet England's entire protestant "reformation"
> started over Henry VIII desire for divorce to marry the "goggle eyed
Well, no. The English have had other Protestants. Among the Calvinists, the Church of England may have
seemed like a lukewarm reformation.
>
> whore", Anne Boleyn.
Hadn't he been granted other divorces, by your Church? From my perspective, calling a tail 'a leg' does
not allow a cow to stand on it, and calling a divorce something else, does not preclude the generous
Catholic from remarrying, as he would have been barred had he not gone through the appropriate $emantic.
> But I digress, suffice to say, since that time
> Protestants have been picking and choosing which scriptures mean
> something to them and which thy will ignore - much in the same way
> Karen Bacquet is doing.
So, we would not want to pick on the Protestants on this point, as we are aware of the hypocrisy of
Rome, in Henry's prior divorces.
> That seems to merit some official declaration
> of anathema, would it not? So why is the UHJ so soft on these
> "dissenters" when in fact their only agenda appears to be to remake
> the BF in a distinctly feminist American, 1960's, liberal format.
>
Maybe there is something heavenly in the 1960s of the US?
Woodstock
-Joni Mitchell
"I came upon a child of God
He was walking along the road
And I asked him, where are you going
And this he told me
I'm going on down to Yasgur's farm
I'm going to join in a rock 'n' roll band
I'm going to camp out on the land
I'm going to try an' get my soul free
We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
Then can I walk beside you
I have come here to lose the smog
And I feel to be a cog in something turning
Well maybe it is just the time of year
Or maybe it's the time of man
I don't know who l am
But you know life is for learning
We are stardust
We are golden
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden
By the time we got to Woodstock
We were half a million strong
And everywhere there was song and celebration
And I dreamed I saw the bombers
Riding shotgun in the sky
And they were turning into butterflies
Above our nation
We are stardustBillion year old carbon
We are goldenCaught in the devil's bargain
And we've got to get ourselves
Back to the garden"
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?Joni_Woodstock.html
Back to the garden; that's what I'm sayin'; that's what Crosby Stills & Nash said, too.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> Just been looking through my books Ariamehr but I cant seem to find the
> text, it was a work of bah'uallah. Anyway, if you eat meat you will go to
> hell.
See ya there, kid! Hope ya like to party! I'll get the steaks on the
barbecue! You bring the beer!
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day! Teach him to fish and he'll
spend all day in a boat, drinking beer!"
Pat Kohli
miss calm wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F285370...@ameritel.net...
> >
> > miss calm wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry Ariamehr, I must have given that text away to someone or mislaid
> it.
> > > But I would say to you that if your prophet was a vegetarian then if you
> are
> > > a good murad of your Murshad then will you not try to emulate his
> example?
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > That makes sense.
> >
> > Best wishes!
> > - Pat
> > kohli at ameritel.net
>
> Thank you Pat, Bahu'allahs followers are not worthy to follow him.
That makes sense, too. I am definitely unworthy. You make better sense when
you speak for yourself, than when you say that Baha'u'llah said something that
nobody but you remembers him saying, and you don't remember where you read him
saying it.
Khoda Negahdar,
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
news:bg8qjo$2phn$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
> I have searched - and you are right. It is nowhere to be found. The
> reason for that is that it has neither been said nor written. Nowhere is
> the concept of "going to hell if you eat meat" said, written, or even
> mentioned in passing.
Come now, Brian! Surely some dietician or proctologist has expounded on the
lack of wisdom of an extravagantly carnivorous diet? Or are the fees far
too attractive...... ?
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> Wouldn't that ruin the whole idea?
Only slightly! Whether or not the UBs ever formally coalesce into a formal
sect, it will suit the agenda of certain people, at some future time, to
assert that they have.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
news:<lESVa.13063$yv1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
> > A typical closet fundamentalist Baha'i pretending to be a Catholic.
> >
> > --
> >
> Now Randy,
Indeed Randy, we have loads of these idiotic Fenian bigots here and a goodly
number of similar Prod ones as well. I say "similar" as, indeed that is what
they are - exceptionally stupid on separate sides of the extreme.
Ariamehr
don't beat around the bush ! just admit your mistake and get it over with.
Ariamehr
"miss calm" <gree...@nospam.cat> wrote in message
news:bg99fe$4ll$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
Brian Walker
What? You delve into trade secrets?? You rotter ....
Brian
Paul Hammond
> QisQos wrote:
>
> > yet England's entire protestant "reformation"
> > started over Henry VIII desire for divorce to marry the "goggle eyed
>
> Well, no. The English have had other Protestants. Among the Calvinists, the Church of England may have
> seemed like a lukewarm reformation.
>
Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists - but of course this was all
later than Henry.
> >
> > whore", Anne Boleyn.
>
> Hadn't he been granted other divorces, by your Church? From my perspective, calling a tail 'a leg' does
> not allow a cow to stand on it, and calling a divorce something else, does not preclude the generous
> Catholic from remarrying, as he would have been barred had he not gone through the appropriate $emantic.
>
I think your history is slightly amiss here. Henry's first divorce
was of Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn, and this was
the one which caused Henry to institute a break with Rome in
order to make himself head of the Anglican church. Cheekily,
he kept the title "Defender of the Faith", which was awarded
to him by the Pope, for a polemic he wrote *against* Luther,
and to this day, this is one of the British monarch's titles
(Charles, in his new age moods, considers that he might
want to be invested as "Defender of Faiths", seeing as
how Britain is much more multicultural than once it was)
> > But I digress, suffice to say, since that time
> > Protestants have been picking and choosing which scriptures mean
> > something to them and which thy will ignore - much in the same way
> > Karen Bacquet is doing.
>
> So, we would not want to pick on the Protestants on this point, as we are aware of the hypocrisy of
> Rome, in Henry's prior divorces.
>
I should think we wouldn't want to be picking on Karen Bacquet,
but I think Dermod has already made the definitive
pronouncement on Mr QisQos here.
> > That seems to merit some official declaration
> > of anathema, would it not? So why is the UHJ so soft on these
> > "dissenters" when in fact their only agenda appears to be to remake
> > the BF in a distinctly feminist American, 1960's, liberal format.
> >
>
> Maybe there is something heavenly in the 1960s of the US?
>
> Woodstock
> -Joni Mitchell
>
Didn't they also pave paradise to put up a parking lot?
Paul
Pat Kohli
Paul Hammond wrote:
> Pat Kohli <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message news:<3F2862D4...@ameritel.net>...
> > QisQos wrote:
>
> >
> > > yet England's entire protestant "reformation"
> > > started over Henry VIII desire for divorce to marry the "goggle eyed
> >
> > Well, no. The English have had other Protestants. Among the Calvinists, the Church of England may have
> > seemed like a lukewarm reformation.
> >
>
> Presbyterians, Quakers, Methodists - but of course this was all
> later than Henry.
>
> > >
> > > whore", Anne Boleyn.
> >
> > Hadn't he been granted other divorces, by your Church? From my perspective, calling a tail 'a leg' does
> > not allow a cow to stand on it, and calling a divorce something else, does not preclude the generous
> > Catholic from remarrying, as he would have been barred had he not gone through the appropriate $emantic.
> >
>
> I think your history is slightly amiss here. Henry's first divorce
> was of Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn, and this was
> the one which caused Henry to institute a break with Rome in
> order to make himself head of the Anglican church. Cheekily,
> he kept the title "Defender of the Faith", which was awarded
> to him by the Pope, for a polemic he wrote *against* Luther,
> and to this day, this is one of the British monarch's titles
> (Charles, in his new age moods, considers that he might
> want to be invested as "Defender of Faiths", seeing as
> how Britain is much more multicultural than once it was)
Thanks Paul. Sorry Qisqos.
>
>
> > > But I digress, suffice to say, since that time
> > > Protestants have been picking and choosing which scriptures mean
> > > something to them and which thy will ignore - much in the same way
> > > Karen Bacquet is doing.
> >
> > So, we would not want to pick on the Protestants on this point, as we are aware of the hypocrisy of
> > Rome, in Henry's prior divorces.
> >
>
> I should think we wouldn't want to be picking on Karen Bacquet,
> but I think Dermod has already made the definitive
> pronouncement on Mr QisQos here.
>
> > > That seems to merit some official declaration
> > > of anathema, would it not? So why is the UHJ so soft on these
> > > "dissenters" when in fact their only agenda appears to be to remake
> > > the BF in a distinctly feminist American, 1960's, liberal format.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe there is something heavenly in the 1960s of the US?
> >
> > Woodstock
> > -Joni Mitchell
> >
>
> Didn't they also pave paradise to put up a parking lot?
>
Aye, but the Big Yellow Taxi hasn't taken away my old man, not yet.
In the sixties, though, we realized what we were losing.
QisQos
> >
> > Maybe there is something heavenly in the 1960s of the US?
> >
> > Woodstock
> > -Joni Mitchell
> >
>
> Didn't they also pave paradise to put up a parking lot?
>
> Paul
Well the 60' were certainly a cultural catasprophe for the USA it
seems.
More revolution and anomie.
But as I suspected the 60's ethos runs strong in bahaist culture,
which gives the lie to Glaysher's calling of the haifa set
"conservative", unless we wish to consider the drive towards a less
"extreme" form of liberalism "conservative".
All the same, your points on the Henry VIII reformation are good
points which I did not touch upon in my post, but then so few , bahais
or not, have any deep understanding of history - hence the ease with
shich masonic-bahai concepts like the "evolution" of civilization come
off so easily.
As for Mrs. Bacquet - it would be interesting to know how someone of
her antinomian bent evades the disciplinary arm of Bahaism. Obviously
her own public contempt for the laws of the bahai religion appear to
be ignored when a non-bahaist critic points this out. No doubt this
laissez faire attitude towards the reprobate is not lost on other
non-bahai observers.
But enough of all of this for now, ciao bello.
QisQos
Randy Burns
long ways off.
Randy
--
Dermod Ryder <grim_reaper MO...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bg9ui8$r9o$8...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Freethought110
> news:PCSVa.13053$yv1....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > Wouldn't that ruin the whole idea?
>
> Only slightly! Whether or not the UBs ever formally coalesce into a formal
> sect, it will suit the agenda of certain people, at some future time, to
> assert that they have.
Face it, the Haifan uhj is never going to change. All of you would be
better off if you *did* formally constitute yourselves as a baha'i
sect and let the uhj cult in Haifa go into oblivion as a result. You
could compose your own uhj with women on it, and with it you could
make the whole thing a lot more attractive to potential converts that
way disposed, thereby pulling the rug from out under the Haifan fools
forever. Schism is good; schism is healthy, it is on the political and
religious level what evolution is to biology. If the
unenrolled/liberals cut their losses with Haifa, they have nothing to
lose and everything to gain, would they but know it, would they that
they had the cahones to do it!
errol9
kohliCUT...@ameritel.net wrote on 1/8/03 1:38 am:
Before Charles could become (Defender of Faiths) the 1701 act of settlement
would have to be abolished by the British parliament.
http://members.rogers.com/jacobites/documents/1701settlement.htm
Errol
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
SO! I have detected the conspiracy! And, pray tell, who else is involved
in it - MI5, the CIA, Mossad, the Livestock Marketing Commission?
Paul Hammond
Don't think so, Errol.
So far as I know, Charles isn't planning on turning Catholic.
Paul
Paul Hammond
>
> As for Mrs. Bacquet - it would be interesting to know how someone of
> her antinomian bent evades the disciplinary arm of Bahaism. Obviously
> her own public contempt for the laws of the bahai religion appear to
> be ignored when a non-bahaist critic points this out. No doubt this
> laissez faire attitude towards the reprobate is not lost on other
> non-bahai observers.
>
> But enough of all of this for now, ciao bello.
>
> QisQos
Qis,
You've already got Karen totally wrong once. I suggest you
don't go compounding the mistake immediately. Where is
the evidence that Karen has an "antinomian bent"? How
about you start following you Lord's example for a change,
and let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
Paul
Brian Walker
> "Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
> news:bgb7m3$11g9$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
>
>>Dermod Ryder wrote:
>>
>>>"Brian Walker" <bfwa...@net-yan.com> wrote in message
>>>news:bg8qjo$2phn$1...@news.hgc.com.hk...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have searched - and you are right. It is nowhere to be found. The
>>>>reason for that is that it has neither been said nor written. Nowhere is
>>>>the concept of "going to hell if you eat meat" said, written, or even
>>>>mentioned in passing.
>>>
>>>
>>>Come now, Brian! Surely some dietician or proctologist has expounded on
>
> the
>
>>>lack of wisdom of an extravagantly carnivorous diet? Or are the fees
>
> far
>
>>>too attractive...... ?
>>
>>What? You delve into trade secrets?? You rotter ....
>
>
> SO! I have detected the conspiracy! And, pray tell, who else is involved
> in it - MI5, the CIA, Mossad, the Livestock Marketing Commission?
Let's just leave my NZ colleagues out of this!
Brian
errol9
paha...@onetel.net.uk wrote on 1/8/03 3:12 pm:
Dont know your English history Paul.
By abolishing the 1701 act of settlememnt does not mean Charles would turn
Catholic. All it would do would give him as King the freedom of choice to
choose whatever religion he wishes. The same choice all citizens of the UK
have. At present the 1701 act of settlement coupled with the 1535 Act of
Supremacy insists all Monarchs must belong to the Established Church. In
fact once an English Monarch is crowned he automatically becomes the supreme
Head of the Church of England. The act of supremacy of 1535 would also have
to be abolished for Charles to be **Defender of Faiths**.
In fact legally it is still a capital offence not to acknowledge the King as
Supree Head of the Church:
"The Act of Supremacy also made it a capital offence not to acknowledge the
king as Supreme Head of the Church"
http://www.sursumcorda.co.uk/sursum16/page5.html
Errol
Randy Burns
Randy
--
Paul Hammond <paha...@onetel.net.uk> wrote in message
news:c977f97b.03080...@posting.google.com...
Randy Burns
Freethought110 <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83b59396.03073...@posting.google.com...
> Schism is good; schism is healthy, it is on the political and
> religious level what evolution is to biology.
Yes you can argue that schism is good, but in politics does it make sense to
urge the Democratic party to undergo schism every 20 years and produce new
parties? No and we know the answer why, multiple parties cannot compete as
well as a single large party that can maintain some coherence. I think
Baha'i suffers from smallness and therefore schism would be irrelevant at
this time.
> If the
> unenrolled/liberals cut their losses with Haifa, they have nothing to
> lose and everything to gain, would they but know it, would they that
> they had the cahones to do it!
Either that or you need to empower yourself like a party caucus does in
political parties and bargain for a share of the power. Either way all
religions today are just forms of politics being played out in the wider
world of politics.
Cheers, Randy
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
Don't tell me that New Zealand is involved in this conspiracy as well. It's
bad enough that our guys are in it up to their necks. Is nothing sacred
anymore?
>
> Brian
>
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> That's way over his head, Paul.
He just can't throw stones ... now with six months over here, he might just
learn.
QisQos
> don't go compounding the mistake immediately. Where is
> the evidence that Karen has an "antinomian bent"? How
> about you start following you Lord's example for a change,
> and let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
>
> Paul
Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
your religion. As for reproving sinners, there is ample precedent in
the NT for admonishing sinners as an act of charity so that the sinner
can be corrected and get his life right with God and the Church.
As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
commandment by following a false prophet. Is a stone cast here, no,
because I do not condemn you or Mrs. Bacquet, but tell you that you
are following a false prophet.
Jesus, when he returns to judge the living and the dead will be the
one doing the casting there.
Matthew 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves.
I suppose the hard question is for Mrs. Bacquet, why she rejects the
so-called covenant of Baha Allah, yet she persists in believing in
him, would it not be simpler to find a faith based on truth instead of
falsehoods?
QisQos
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
> paha...@onetel.net.uk (Paul Hammond) wrote in message news:<c977f97b.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> > Qis...@aol.com (QisQos) wrote in message news:<29a4262b.03073...@posting.google.com>...
> >
>
> > You've already got Karen totally wrong once. I suggest you
> > don't go compounding the mistake immediately. Where is
> > the evidence that Karen has an "antinomian bent"? How
> > about you start following you Lord's example for a change,
> > and let he who is without sin cast the first stone?
> >
> > Paul
>
> Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
> your religion.
You have no idea of how she acts; you barely know what she's said on line. She is not telling the world about
drinking alcholic beverages, or adultery, or ripping off her employers. I wonder if you are simply pursuing some
unprovoked personal smear, for your own personal entertainment. What acts of disregard are you referring to?
> (snip)
>
> As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
> commandment by following a false prophet.
By first commandment, would you be referring to, "Love God with your whole heart, mind and soul"?
My understanding of what Baha'u'llah says about God, is different from my understanding of what your Church says
about God.
One view of God has God addressing mankind directly through the Bible, and indirectly through creation. In this
view, various hundreds of millions of people never really heard the truth about God, and are going to limbo, for
eternity, OR, in the Protestant variant, go to hell for eternity. Their fates were sealed through accidents of
geography and time; thank God we are not among these poor WOGs.
The other view of God has God addressing all mankind, directly through various Manifestations of God, or indirectly,
but equally effectively, through seers and prophets. There is no one, who, through accident of time or geography,
who was not exposed to a message from God, and given an opportunity to choose God.
This is relatively simple to see which point of view describes a more loving God, Who is totally loveable.
I don't know if you really are a Roman Catholic, as you position yourself, and I don't know if you were a Baha'i, as
you seem to me to have been. But, if you really are and really were, you should be able to recall, did you love God
more then, or now?
(snip)
Karen Bacquet
>>
>>Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
>>your religion.
>
>
> You have no idea of how she acts; you barely know what she's said on line. She is not telling the world about
> drinking alcholic beverages, or adultery, or ripping off her employers.
Dear Pat,
I actually have a multitude of faults -- but it's better not to admit
them online, where the wolves are poised to go for your throat if
defenses are not intact. But where Baha'i law is concerned, I make a
conscientious effort to keep it, as best I'm able. I use alcohol only
medicinally -- and even if I'm sick or in pain will not do so if I'm the
only one home responsible for the kids. As for adultery or stealing,
those are not among the temptations I struggle with. This evening, I
performed my ablutions, said my prayers (including one for a friend we
just heard passed away), my 95 Allah'u'abha's, and recited some Hidden
Words. Nobody's checking up on me to make sure I do those things; among
some, I don't even get credit for being a Baha'i. "Obey My commandments,
for the love of my Beauty" is what He says -- not "Obey My commandments,
lest somebody call you an unbeliever."
I wonder if you are simply pursuing some
> unprovoked personal smear, for your own personal entertainment. What acts of disregard are you referring to?
That's what I'd like to know.
>
>
>>(snip)
>>
>>As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
>>commandment by following a false prophet.
So, why pick on me? Even better, if he's a false prophet, why give a
damn about whether or not I'm following Baha'i law?
Love, Karen
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
> > Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
> > your religion.
>
> You have no idea of how she acts; you barely know what she's said on line.
She is not telling the world about
> drinking alcholic beverages, or adultery, or ripping off her employers.
SO! She's holding out on us! You'd think she'd at least invite her friends
to join in.
> I wonder if you are simply pursuing some
> unprovoked personal smear, for your own personal entertainment. What acts
of disregard are you referring to?
He's peeved he wasn't invited to the party.
> > As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
> > commandment by following a false prophet.
>
> By first commandment, would you be referring to, "Love God with your whole
heart, mind and soul"?
Not at all! He has ants in his pants about his prophets. And because he has
picked one as the "one and only" everybody else has to do the same or wind
up needing an asbestos parachute for the long fall into perdition.
<SNIP>
> I don't know if you really are a Roman Catholic, as you position yourself,
and I don't know if you were a Baha'i, as
> you seem to me to have been. But, if you really are and really were, you
should be able to recall, did you love God
> more then, or now?
He's a Fenian bigot and there's only one thing on a par with that - a bigot
from any religious persuasion.
MOST@btinternet.com Dermod Ryder
"Karen Bacquet" <bac...@tco.net> wrote in message
news:3F2B6276...@tco.net...
>. As for adultery or stealing,
> those are not among the temptations I struggle with.
You give in to them! Good! Good!
Actually Karen, you do have to justify yourself or render an account of
yourself to the neat nerd that QQ is or to anybody else, for that matter.
Paul Hammond
Errol,
Please explain the connection of your comments about the 1701
Act with my comment about Charles having "new age moods"?
As far as I am aware, the 1701 Act was specifically enacted
to make sure that after Queen Anne died there would never
be a danger of a Catholic becoming English Monarch. That's
why, in 1714 we made the Elector of Hanover King.
If Charles wanted to effect a change in Henry's old
title "Defender of the Faith", to reflect his conviction
that now we are a multi-faith society we shouldn't have
such preferences for Anglicanism, there is nothing in
the 1701 act that stops him. Indeed, the 1701 Act would
only apply to Charles if he decided to become Catholic,
as I have said.
Now, abolising that piece of anti-Catholic legislation
might well be a good thing to do in its own right, but
as it stands your comment that the 1701 Act prevents
Charles from making this cosmetic change to one of his
titles is wholly erroneous.
Paul
errol9
The 1701 Act of Settlement is not only anti Catholic it is also anti
Orthodox and anti all other Protestant denominations which are not **Church
of England** It is also anti all other world religions, like Jewish Muslim
Hindu, Buddhist, Baha'i etc etc..
"That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall
join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established;"
Karen Bacquet
Dermod Ryder wrote:
> "Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
> news:3F2B473B...@ameritel.net...
>
>>>Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
>>>your religion.
>>
>>You have no idea of how she acts; you barely know what she's said on line.
>
> She is not telling the world about
>
>>drinking alcholic beverages, or adultery, or ripping off her employers.
>
>
> SO! She's holding out on us! You'd think she'd at least invite her friends
> to join in.
>
No way! You guys are too tame. Don't forget what my group does with
ducks. :-)
>
>>I wonder if you are simply pursuing some
>>unprovoked personal smear, for your own personal entertainment. What acts
>
> of disregard are you referring to?
>
> He's peeved he wasn't invited to the party.
Nope; we've got better taste.
>
> He's a Fenian bigot and there's only one thing on a par with that - a bigot
> from any religious persuasion.
I'll invoke one of Jim's favorite sayings: "He doesn't like anyone,
regardless of race, creed, color, or religious affiliation."
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Michael McKenny
You shared with us:
QisQos (Qis...@aol.com) writes:
>
> Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
> your religion.
Doug, could you kindly enumerate the "laws" she is disregarding?
> As for reproving sinners, there is ample precedent in
> the NT for admonishing sinners as an act of charity so that the sinner
> can be corrected and get his life right with God and the Church.
So, by analogy, mutatis mutandis, as they say, you can admonish her so
she can get her life right with you and the other eight? Yes, but, uhm
doesn't it say in the NT not to focus on the splint in your neighbour's
eye, but direct your efforts to extracting the beam from your own eye? And,
uhm, doesn't Baha'i have identical guidance that so long as one swerves to
look at how badly his neighbour is plowing his field, then his own line
gets quite crooked, wouldn't it be better to let each perform the full
time task of worrying about his own sins, right, Doug?
>
> As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
> commandment by following a false prophet.
Obfuscation. This is so people don't clue in to your secret identity,
right, Doug? Doesn't matter a bit, due to the ad hominem thing. Your
points are equally refutable whether you sign your name X Christian or
U HJ, right?
> Is a stone cast here, no,
> because I do not condemn you or Mrs. Bacquet, but tell you
Well, thanks for the info, brother. Nice to be kept informed.
> that you
> are following a false prophet.
Obfuscation again, since then you're helping to ruin, er run, an
outfit you say's led by a false prophet. They could say that's why you're
so keen to ruin it. Actually, check the dude out, Doug. Equality of women
and men, religion in harmony with science, tolerance, universal
understanding and acceptance of the equally valuable humanity of people of
different races, nations, social classes, reduction of the imbalanced
distribution of wealth. Dude, there's plenty of real people that can't
hold a candle to this fraud.
> Jesus, when he returns to judge the living and the dead will be the
> one doing the casting there.
My sentiments precisely, Doug. Let's all let Jesus give us the sign by
tossing the first stone. While we wait, let's try what we can of that
fake's menu. We may not achieve Utopia, but we could well distance
ourselves a bit further from Hell.
> Matthew 7:15
> Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
> inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Cute, Doug, conveying so subtly that Mrs. Bacquet only looks like a
lamb. However, ad hominem, right? So long as you do the moral stuff, of
which Jesus would approve, too, in that paragraph above there about the
harmonious way of living, it doesn't really matter whether you call the
dude tellin' you the stuff sheep or wolf. Call him what you like, so long
as you're demonstrating the equality of women and men, universal
understanding, etc.
> I suppose the hard question is for Mrs. Bacquet, why she rejects the
> so-called covenant of Baha Allah,
"so-called" is another of these clouds so the luminosity, if that's
what it is, of thy secret identity be obscured from human vision. Mrs.
Bacquet no more rejects the Covenant of Baha'u'llah than Terra has thrice
three natural satellites, Luna being the smallest. Thou, Dougie, my boy,
thou, hast more to worry on that score. Baha'u'llah instructed you to let
the likes of Mrs. Bacquet reach through any artificial glass ceiling and
share in the administration, at all levels, of her religion.
> yet she persists in believing in
> him, would it not be simpler to find a faith based on truth instead of
> falsehoods?
See, what you did, Dougie, with your expressed wish, your well
articulated and psychologically deficient effort to drive away yet another
true believer? You attracted here one who was so preoccupied elsewhere, he
hadn't posted here in some time. How can I concentrate on that review of
that book about Japanese shamanism, etc. when you stir up all this Baha'i
energy and all these martyrs are poking wispy fingers on my shoulders and
sayin', "Come on, Michael, Dougie is writing at full speed over on TRB
pretending he's a Christian and saying Karen's a CB; go tell him only the
UHJ can designate people CBs and remind him what any Christian should know
about calling (or simply telling) others sinners; let each worry about the
trees growing in his own eyes before pointing at the twigs he fancies he
sees in the eyes of others, that's what Jesus said." Now, me, Dougie, I'm
a druid; trees they're one of main delights, well, generally, I prefer
them growin' out of the ground than from peoples eyes. Anyway, I never
noticed any trees growing out of Mrs Bacquet's eyes. Now, that I've, gods
willing, satisfied these Baha'i ghosts and said what they wanted, let me
get back to the powerful women in Japanese shamanism. Do let me know,
though, when you get around to acknowledging the like of Mrs. Bacquet are
loftier than any glass ceiling being sat on by men.
Thrice Three Blessings, Green
> QisQos
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
Paul Hammond
You haven't answered my question.
How is your comment relevant to my remark on Prince
Charles and his "new age moods"?
Paul
Karen Bacquet
Michael McKenny wrote:
> Howdy, Doug.
> You shared with us:
>
> QisQos (Qis...@aol.com) writes:
>
>>Sin? I am simply saying that she acts in disregard for the laws of
>>your religion.
>
>
> Doug, could you kindly enumerate the "laws" she is disregarding?
Dear Michael,
QisQos recently announced he's going on vacation, so he'll have to
enumerate my sins at some other time.
>
>>As for the situation here, Bahaists all are sinning against the first
>>commandment by following a false prophet.
>
>
> Obfuscation. This is so people don't clue in to your secret identity,
> right, Doug? Doesn't matter a bit, due to the ad hominem thing. Your
> points are equally refutable whether you sign your name X Christian or
> U HJ, right?
Hmm, interesting. Some other folks around here have speculated that his
real name is Harry.
>>Matthew 7:15
>> Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but
>>inwardly they are ravening wolves.
>
>
> Cute, Doug, conveying so subtly that Mrs. Bacquet only looks like a
> lamb.
Actually, I think that's what drives my critics crazy -- they'd really
rather I acted like a wolf. Personally, I'd rather act like a Baha'i,
or try to, anyway.
> See, what you did, Dougie, with your expressed wish, your well
> articulated and psychologically deficient effort to drive away yet another
> true believer? You attracted here one who was so preoccupied elsewhere, he
> hadn't posted here in some time. How can I concentrate on that review of
> that book about Japanese shamanism, etc. when you stir up all this Baha'i
> energy and all these martyrs are poking wispy fingers on my shoulders and
> sayin', "Come on, Michael, Dougie is writing at full speed over on TRB
> pretending he's a Christian and saying Karen's a CB; go tell him only the
> UHJ can designate people CBs and remind him what any Christian should know
> about calling (or simply telling) others sinners; let each worry about the
> trees growing in his own eyes before pointing at the twigs he fancies he
> sees in the eyes of others, that's what Jesus said." Now, me, Dougie, I'm
> a druid; trees they're one of main delights, well, generally, I prefer
> them growin' out of the ground than from peoples eyes. Anyway, I never
> noticed any trees growing out of Mrs Bacquet's eyes. Now, that I've, gods
> willing, satisfied these Baha'i ghosts and said what they wanted, let me
> get back to the powerful women in Japanese shamanism. Do let me know,
> though, when you get around to acknowledging the like of Mrs. Bacquet are
> loftier than any glass ceiling being sat on by men.
Thank you, Michael. I'm actually rather puzzled by QQ's reaction -- I've
never even talked to him, much less done anything to him that that
merits this kind of hostility. Does he think I will react to such
warnings by saying "Golly gee! I'd better get out of this Baha'i stuff
and become a Christian!"? Is he playing to the gallery, attempting to
poison the well for the lurking audience? Or is he just playing a game
for his own amusement? Anybody's guess, I suppose.
As for my fate in this world and the next, I've been told by a couple of
sources that the boys upstairs pretty much regard me as a person who
just "doesn't get it" rather than rising to the level of CB-hood.
However, if those rumors are false (as these sorts of rumors often are),
and that day comes, everyone will be surprised at what I will do.
Well, Michael, I'm kind of cutting back on Internet activity for a
little while, taking one of my short breaks to get perspective -- and I
broke a promise to myself to quit posting for a little while that I just
made today, but I felt your kind support deserved some sort of response.
I hope that the Baha'i martyr-ghosts are now content. :-)
Love, Karen
http://www.bacquet.tk
Paul Hammond
He doesn't seem to have paid a lot of attention to who you
really are, and what you have really said.
It seems to me that he is merely stereotyping. You are a
woman, critical of the Baha'is women only policy on the
UHJ. THerefore, you must be a feminist.
Once he thinks you are a feminist, he lumps you in
with New Agers, socialists, hippies, liberation
theologists, and all kinds of everything that he
doesn't like, disregarding the fact that you have
no particular connection with his particular
bete noires (or is the betes noires?)
He's arguing with what he *thinks* you think, rather
than bothering to find out what you do think and
arguing with that - classic straw man, and very
rude to boot.
Paul
Freethought110
> Freethought110 <freetho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:83b59396.03073...@posting.google.com...
> > Schism is good; schism is healthy, it is on the political and
> > religious level what evolution is to biology.
>
> Yes you can argue that schism is good, but in politics does it make sense to
> urge the Democratic party to undergo schism every 20 years and produce new
> parties? No and we know the answer why, multiple parties cannot compete as
> well as a single large party that can maintain some coherence.
That is only in the US, which arguably no longer a democracy but a
plutocratic duapoly. In Europe and Australasia multiple parties exist
forcing coalitions which force compromise in platforms.
>I think
> Baha'i suffers from smallness
May it suffer it forevermore.
Randy Burns
>
> That is only in the US, which arguably no longer a democracy but a
> plutocratic duapoly.
That is essentially correct.
>In Europe and Australasia multiple parties exist
> forcing coalitions which force compromise in platforms.
The beneficial effect of having multiple religions acting like multiple
political parties will come from similiar forcing of coalitions for power
sharing, thus helping to unite religions in spite of their own misgivings of
sharing power with the "devil" of another religion. Eventually the idea
that other religions are "evil" will fade.
At the grass roots level there is an essential sharing of purpose in the
desire of the religious individual to gain some say in the organizational
running of the church or religion, thus grass roots organization can create
goodwill between the various religious groups. The organization of
religions should more and more mirror that of political development in the
world, with the eventual formation of a "United Nations" of religions being
possible as a way of dealing with the violence of religious fundamentalism.
Cheers, Randy
Michael McKenny
Here's a toast to you for striving to act like a Baha'i.
I've still got to prove read that review and after that attend to a
number of things put off while I worked on that book. And, my brother is
arriving from British Columbia and my sister from Alberta within the
next several hours.
Here's best wishes to everyone else that they all can best demonstrate
the loftiest ideals of spirituality, whichever path each is treading.
Thrice Three Blessings, Green aka michael