My memories of the Albuquerque Baha'i community
Nima Hazini
reminisce a little about some of my own experiences in perhaps one of the
most dysfunctional and loonier local Baha'i communities in the world.
I came to the Albuquerque Baha'i community in 1989 from Australia when I
had just turned 18 and it was as a result of my own experiences with the
Albuquerque Baha'i community which began the process of finally turning me
off the religion completely. Interestingly it was with those same cast of
characters mentioned in Yorgos Marinakis' brief/deposition that I went
through my own travails.
My first encounter with the LSA of Albuqueruque was in early Spring
1991. I was a spectator in an anti-war rally outside of Zimmerman library on
the campus of UNM (University of New Mexico), where I was an undergraduate
student at the time, a few days before the beginning of the Gulf War. To
make a long story short, it seems one of the local Baha'is (or an employee
of Channel 41 where Victory works, I never found out who) had spotted me and
another Baha'i there and reported both of us to Kambiz Victory (the self
proclaimed "voice of God" in the deposition). Within a few days after the
rally I recieved a phone call from an Assembly member informing me in curt
fashion that I had participated in a "partisan political rally" and so
therefore was in violation of Baha'i law. When I met with the LSA, a string
of unsubstantiated charges and accusations were hurled right and left by the
LSA about my "political activities" and how they were damaging to the Faith,
etc. No amount of pleading with them did any good, and one Assembly member
even went so far as to state that he believed that Baha'u'llah himself would
support Operation Desert Storm, encouraged the big stick policy where
international affairs were concerned, and as such so should all Baha'is
without exception (regardless of whether they believed in the justness or
injustice of the war and the fight for America's Mid East petroleum
interests). Since I was only 19 at the time, I had no Baha'i administrative
rights, therefore did not have the threat of sanctions looming over my head.
This passed.
A few short months later I had borrowed William Miller's *The Baha'i
Faith: Its History and Teachings* from the library and one of the Baha'is
had found out about it and reported me to the Assembly. Victory called me
shortly thereafter and asked if I might come over to his house and bring the
book with me. The meeting was friendly and cordial, at the end of which
Victory made a personal request that after I was finished with the book if I
could please make photocopies of the pictures of the Bab and Baha'u'llah for
him. About a week later I recieved a highly inflammatory letter from the LSA
among other things accusing me of having made photocopies of the pictures in
the book and distributing them all over New Mexico, and also expressing
alarm at the state of my soul for reading a book "by a covenant breaker"
(note:- Miller was never a Baha'i in the first place, but a Presbyterian
Missionary who spent something like 30 years in Iran, and who culled some of
his sources for the book from one Jalal Azal, a descendent of Mirza Yahya
Nuri Subh Azal). The Assembly then called and asked to meet with me. The
meeting with the LSA - attended also by my grandfather and aunt's husband in
my defense - was an inquisition. Among other things, the Assembly demanded I
surrender the book to them immediately. I refused. When I pointed out that
it was Mr. Kambiz Victory who had asked that I make a personal photocopy of
the pictures of Baha'u'llah and the Bab for him, he denied it. The meeting
ended with me sticking to my guns and without any mutually satisfactory
resolution. I returned the book to the library the next day but ordered a
copy of my own from the university bookstore. A week later I recieved
another, even more inflammatory, letter from the LSA threatening me with
future sanctions should I ever behave so disrespectfully towards the LSA and
its demands ever again. I told myself that Kambiz Victory and the
Albuquerque LSA can go lump it, and from thereon I decided to go inactive,
only occasionally attending Feast, and that due more to my relative's
insistance and nagging.
The next year and a half I mostly sat on the sidelines and watched. I
witnessed an Assembly that became increasingly more authoritarian and
paranoid in its modus operandi. It encouraged believers to spy on other
believers for actual or percieved infringements of Baha'i law, particularly
of unmarried couples living together or people who made the slightest
criticism of the Assembly. I constantly heard malicious backbiting about
other believers the Assembly did not like and had blacklisted - Deborah
Buchhorn being one of them - and even witnessed once when at Feast during
the consultation portion when the chairman of the Assembly ran across the
room and forcefully pulled a microphone out of a believers hand and called
an immediate halt to consultation as the believer was about to criticize one
of the LSA's policies.
In the late summer of 1992 a close friend of mine and of another local
Baha'i's, due to our friendship and fellowship with her, decided to become a
Baha'i herself. At the time when she declared, I was not in the United
States, since I was spending the summer vacation here in Australia with my
parents. However, I came back to find that just as soon as she had declared,
she was totally turned off by the LSA and the Baha'is of Albuquerque. Now
this friend owned a huge two storey house off the campus of UNM with 8 rooms
several of which she rented out for extra income in order to keep up with
her mortgage. There were men and women living in the house - I lived there
myself for 6 months because it was so close to campus - but there was
absolutely no hanky-panky whatsoever going on among the people there
especially since we were mostly friends and also because most of the people
living there were serious spiritual practioners of one sort or another.
Besides myself and the friend, we had Tibetan Buddhists, a Sufi and a Hindu
devotee of Abi Da/Da Free John and her young son. Immediately after she
declared, after being welcomed to the Baha'i community, the LSA informed her
that she was in violation of Baha'i law for cohabitating. Any and all
explanations fell on deaf ears - showing how far in the gutter the mind of
the LSA actually was - so she fell inactive shortly thereafter and not long
after that resigned from the Baha'i faith. She was badly backbitten by some,
a few of the more looney local Baha'is even claimed she held "wild swingers
parties and orgies at her home." The question is how would they have known
unless they themselves had attended these "wild swingers parties"!
The departure of my friend from the Baha'i faith was testimony to a
greater problem in the Albuqueruque Baha'i community, and obviously of the
Baha'i community worldwide, and what I have come to call the "revolving door
phenomenon." I remember that at one point there were something like 400
Baha'is on the rolls in Albuquerque during election time. Out of that many
people, I can honestly say that maybe 30 to 50 people (maximum) ever came to
Feast or that I had ever saw at any one time. From a community of 400 people
maybe 40 people ever voted for the LSA each Ridvan. People would just leave
as soon as they came in, and I would sometimes run into people on Campus who
would inform me they had once been Baha'is but had since moved on, yet
never bothered to tell the LSA or the local Baha'is about it. One family,
however, I do remember simply came and donated every single one of their
Baha'i books back to the Albuquerque community. It was there way of saying
"later...see ya wouldn't wanna be ya"!
In late 1993, a particularly obnoxious Muslim Iranian student at UNM,
who was once a Revolutionary Guard in Iran (paasdaar) and who later turned
out to have had ties to the Intelligence services of the government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran (he would regularly spy and report on the
activities of the Iranian students (non-Baha'i and Baha'i alike) at the
university), without getting into the specific details, threatened me and
another Iranian at the International Center of the University of New Mexico.
This individual had had numerous complaints made about him by some female
international students, two of whom he had apparently assaulted sexually (he
was later deported from the United States). I went and filed a report with
the UNM Police who charged him and had him temporarily expelled from the
university. Because a series of complaints and a threat had been made on the
Campus of the university, the University and the City had enough to try him
for disorderly conduct, so I became the city's witness against this
individual. The LSA found out about the situation and demanded that I drop
the case arguing that it would adversely affect the Baha'is in Iran. When I
told them it was not my case to drop and that I was the City's witness, they
would have none of it. I then recieved an accusatory letter from the LSA to
that effect, full of bogus guilt trips and the like, but as usual I
discarded their ridiculous advice, especially this one which was making a
plea to allow a guilty man to walk scott free. A few weeks later Mr. Kambiz
Victory and I had a heated telephone conversation, where Victory ordered me
to "drop the case" and follow the LSA's "instructions" or else! When I
informed him that neither he nor the LSA had any jurisdiction in the matter,
he got even more irate, and informed me I had problems with the covenant. I
told him he was out of line to tell me anything to that effect, and,
besides, just who the hell did he think he was. His reponse, as the one to
Ms. Debrah Buchhorn, was "I am God in this city and whatever I say is His
word."
There is much, much more one could relate about Albuquerque and the
cultlike reality and atmosphere of the Baha'is and the LSA, but I'll leave
it at that for now.
cheers,
Nima
Michael McKenny
Many thanks for this. Openness is the best policy. This is one
reason to overcome censorship in Baha'i. A free press permits errors to
be rectified more easily than keeping dark secrets in the shadows. No
need exists for denials of the possibility of error. Such denial breeds
error and permits it to fester. Let the facts be asserted and let them
be honestly investigated and let the situation be rectified. This is
the need at the global level, at the national and at the local level
wherever the situation calls for it.
To the Future,
Michael
--
"My name's McKenny, Mike McKenny, Warrant Officer, Solar Guard."
(Tom Corbett #1 STAND BY FOR MARS p2)
mult...@aros.net
windows of the world, but I guess that Haifa Baha'is would like to
close the eyes and windows unless they support the decisions if they
ever get power, scary huh.
On 28 Apr 2001 15:50:01 GMT, bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael
ROBERT ARVAY
hold world power today, the institution might practice censorship and
deception on a global scale.
This prompts me to comment as follows: should not Baha'is take another
look at The Revelation? Should they carefully evaluate the description
of the anti-Christ, and ask themselves what role, IF ANY, will the UHJ
play in the Satanic empire of Mystery Babylon, which is to come? And
what is the ONLY defense against being seduced to accept the mark of the
Beast? (Hint: He died on the cross for you and me.)
seegar
<lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote:
>Since Albuquerque has been in the Baha'i headlines lately, allow me to
>reminisce a little about some of my own experiences in perhaps one of the
>most dysfunctional and loonier local Baha'i communities in the world.
Dear Nima,
Only goes to show that yahoo's populate every religion including the
Baha'i Community. It's not damning of the Baha'is - just a fact of
life that wacko's can be in any organizational structure regardless of
the fact that it be political, social or religious. Thankfully I've
had mostly positive experiences and nothing of the sort you mention.
Although we haven't heard the other side ot the story, according to
your experience, this LSA sounds more along the lines of a Catholic
Spanish Inquisitional body from the 1500's. Thank God they don't feel
it in their power to burn witches at the stake. It would have been
desirable for the NSA to have monitored and corrected the behavior of
this LSA to prevent the violation of the spirit of the Baha'i
teachings which definitely occurred, if what you say is true.
Since when has it or is it in any LSA jurisdiction to confiscate a
borrowed library book? That is ridiculous.
Also, persons of the opposite sex in the same house is not evidence of
heterosexual relations any more than men residing in the same house
would be proof of occurrence of homosexual relations. I think the
sanction of prohibiting opposite sexes residing in the same residence
is quite unnecessary reactionary puritanical thinking in this day and
age. Just one mans opinion.
Also, when we refuse to prosecute sex offenders because of possible
nebulous negative outcome elsewhere than we abdicate our duty to
protect victims of violent crime and do not deserve to be called
followers of the light.
Lastly, any one who would say "I am God in this city and whatever I
say is His word" has to visit his psychiatrist and deal with issues of
megalomania.
Peace and Love,
Chris
Nima Hazini
Many thanks for your encouraging words. Yes, it all happened.
cheers,
Nima
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3aef796b...@news-server.optonline.net...
Roger Reini
ARVAY) wrote:
>Multiman speculates (if I read him correctly) that if the UHJ were to
>hold world power today, the institution might practice censorship and
>deception on a global scale.
I tend to discount that person's opinion in this case because of other
opinions he has stated in this newsgroup -- opinions that, IMHO, are
in support of individuals who have broken the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
I am NOT calling him a Covenant breaker, for I have no knowledge of
his status in the Baha'i Faith. Still, if he is indeed a CB or a
supporter of CB's, then I discount any statement of his on the supreme
Baha'i institution and its legitimacy.
>This prompts me to comment as follows: should not Baha'is take another
>look at The Revelation? Should they carefully evaluate the description
>of the anti-Christ,
FYI, an individual named Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani was declared to be
the Antichrist of the Baha'i Revelation. He was the chief agitator of
the initial rebellion against Baha'u'llah. He was the one who induced
Mirza Yahya, Baha'u'llah's half-brother, to break the Covenant of the
Bab and say he was a Manifestation of God.
> and ask themselves what role, IF ANY, will the UHJ
>play in the Satanic empire of Mystery Babylon, which is to come? And
>what is the ONLY defense against being seduced to accept the mark of the
>Beast? (Hint: He died on the cross for you and me.)
I thought that the mark of the Beast referred to certain conditions
under the Ummayad dynasty of caliphs in Sunni Islam. The Ummayads had
usurped the legitimate authority in Islam from the Imamate.
And, of course, as you know, we Baha'is believe that Christ has
returned in the person of Baha'u'llah.
Rick Schaut
> your experience, this LSA sounds more along the lines of a Catholic
> Spanish Inquisitional body from the 1500's. Thank God they don't feel
> it in their power to burn witches at the stake. It would have been
> desirable for the NSA to have monitored and corrected the behavior of
> this LSA to prevent the violation of the spirit of the Baha'i
> teachings which definitely occurred, if what you say is true.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nima's facts are both accurate
and sufficiently complete (yes, that's a strong assumption). What should
the National Spiritual Assembly do to correct this Assembly's behavior?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Randy Burns
--
Roger Reini <ro...@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:zvbvOiQiF66yIL...@4ax.com...
> FYI, an individual named Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani was declared to be
> the Antichrist of the Baha'i Revelation. He was the chief agitator of
> the initial rebellion against Baha'u'llah. He was the one who induced
> Mirza Yahya, Baha'u'llah's half-brother, to break the Covenant of the
> Bab and say he was a Manifestation of God.
Is it true that Mirza Yahya declared himself to be a Manifestation of God?
I'm not sure one way or another but I don't remember a specific declaration
by Mirza Yahya, just his assertion to be the head of the Babi cause. Is
there a particular book you are thinking of here or a passage you can lead
me to in order to clear this up for me?
Thanks, Randy
Michael McKenny
said is valid. Who said it is invalid.
Roger Reini (ro...@rreini.com) writes:
>
> I tend to discount that person's opinion in this case because of other
> opinions he has stated in this newsgroup -- opinions that, IMHO, are
> in support of individuals who have broken the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
> I am NOT calling him a Covenant breaker, for I have no knowledge of
> his status in the Baha'i Faith. Still, if he is indeed a CB or a
> supporter of CB's, then I discount any statement of his on the supreme
> Baha'i institution and its legitimacy.
--
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9cp5n...@news2.newsguy.com...
Shoot the bastards?
Jay Paine
>Dear Roger:
Hi Randy.
I don't know if Yahya used the term Manifestation of God to describe
himself, but it appears that he had identified himself with the Godhead at
one point. And also that, during the Adrianople period, in response to the
Suriy-i-Amr revealed by Baha'u'llah, he claimed to have been the recipient
of an independent Revelation. This implies that he at least claimed to be a
"Prophet" or "Messenger" of God.
These passages are from 'God Passes By', and refer to Mirza Yahya.
"Irremediably corrupted through his constant association with Siyyid
Muhammad, that living embodiment of wickedness, cupidity and deceit, he had
already in the absence of Baha'u'llah from Baghdad, and even after His
return from Sulaymaniyyih, stained the annals of the Faith with acts of
indelible infamy. His corruption, in scores of instances, of the text of the
Bab's writings; the blasphemous addition he made to the formula of the adhan
by the introduction of a passage in which he identified himself with the
Godhead; his insertion of references in those writings to a succession in
which he nominated himself and his descendants as heirs of the Bab; the
vacillation and apathy he had betrayed when informed of the tragic death
which his Master had suffered; his condemnation to death of all the Mirrors
of the Babi Dispensation, though he himself was one of those Mirrors; his
dastardly act in causing the murder of Dayyan, whom he feared and envied;
his foul deed in bringing about, during the absence of Baha'u'llah from
Baghdad, the assassination of Mirza Ali-Akbar, the Bab's cousin; and, most
heinous of all, his unspeakably repugnant violation, during that same
period, of the honor of the Bab Himself - all these, as attested by
Aqay-i-Kalim, and reported by Nabil in his Narrative, were to be thrown into
a yet more lurid light by further acts the perpetration of which were to
seal irretrievably his doom."
"The moment had now arrived for Him Who had so recently, both verbally
and in numerous Tablets, revealed the implications of the claims He had
advanced, to acquaint formally the one who was the nominee of the Bab with
the character of His Mission. Mirza Aqa Jan was accordingly commissioned to
bear to Mirza Yahya the newly revealed Suriy-i-Amr, which unmistakably
affirmed those claims, to read aloud to him its contents, and demand an
unequivocal and conclusive reply. Mirza Yahya's request for a one day
respite, during which he could meditate his answer, was granted. The only
reply, however, that was forthcoming was a counter-declaration, specifying
the hour and the minute in which he had been made the recipient of an
independent Revelation, necessitating the unqualified submission to him of
the peoples of the earth in both the East and the West."
(Shoghi Effendi: God Passes By, Pages: 165-167)
jay
ROBERT ARVAY
I tread on eggshells here, because I don't wish to be seen as linking
Baha'is to the anti-Christ as described in The Revelation. But, while I
am neither scholar nor theologian, I've spent considerable time in Rev,
and many of the events foretold have not happened. When did a meteor
(so well described by someone with no education in modern astronomy as
"something like a mountain, burning with fire, cast into the sea.")
strike the ocean and destroy a third of the ships? When did a 200
million- man army cross the dried-up Euphrates? And when was no one
able to buy or sell, save he that had the mark of the beast, or the
number of his name, written on his right hand or forehead? One would
have to torture the plain meaning of scripture to explain these as past
events. And if one can do that, why take anything in scripture as
truth, since NOBODY can use it beforehand?
The Old Testament foretold that the Jews would be scattered to the four
corners of the earth and then reunited in the Promised Land. It
happened. It happened just that way. Nobody needed to say, well, what
it REALLY means is such and so. The Revelation is not The Obfuscation.
I urge you to clear your mind of preconception, ask the Holy Spirit for
guidance, and then read what the Book actually says. It says what it
means, not what somebody needed it to say. Then reconsider the part
near the end, where it warns about adding to or subtracting from the
words of The Book.
And may God richly bless you.
Dermod Ryder
Whatever else Shoghi Effendi was, he was not an objective historian as the
intemperate language of your abstract shows. I would prefer to see
information from other than sectarian sources; those which have no agenda to
promote.
After all Yahya was the appointed successor of the Bab and as such not the
Covenant Breaker that Bahai folklore describes (a point well made by Nima
some months ago). As successor was he not "entitled" to some form of Divine
revelation or guidance? After all was not Shoghi Effendi also the recipient
of Divine guidance? It seems to me that Bahais abhor contention when they
are being contended with but are expert practitioners of it when they are
contending with those they perceive as their foes. Slight case of pot,
kettle and varying shades of blackness.
As ever,
Dermod.
"Jay Paine" <jayp...@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tf0vj1r...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
Nima Hazini
What's wrong with you??
Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani was not a covenant breaker because he was never a
Baha'i. Duh! Mirza Yahya Subh Azal was not a covenant breaker because he was
never a Baha'i. Duh! Azal could not have broken the covenant of the Bab,
because he was its executor. Subh-e Azal NEVER claimed to be a Manifestation
of God, as you have asserted several times before without substantiating. If
Yahya had claimed to be a Manifestation of God he would also have had to
claim the station of Manyuzhiru'llah which he categorically denied about all
its numerous claimants in the 1850s and then later his own brother. Yahya
held the appearance of Him Whom Will Manifest would occur 2001 years after
the Bab. How could he then have claimed that station if he believed this?? I
suspect whatever source you have culled this information from you have
either not read very carefully or the source is wrong.
If you want to believe I am a cb, crypto- or otherwise, that is your
prerogative. I happen to believe you are a naive simpleton and a religious
fanatic.
cheers,
Nima
"Roger Reini" <ro...@rreini.com> wrote in message
news:zvbvOiQiF66yIL...@4ax.com...
On Tue, 1 May 2001 19:31:37 -0400 (EDT), RAR...@webtv.net (ROBERT
FYI, an individual named Siyyid Muhammad-i-Isfahani was declared to be
Nima Hazini
"Jay Paine" <jayp...@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tf0vj1r...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
>Suriy-i-Amr revealed by Baha'u'llah, he claimed to have >been the recipient
>of an independent Revelation. This implies that he at >least claimed to be
a
>"Prophet" or "Messenger" of God.
Nonesense.
<snip>
cheers,
Nima
seegar
>Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nima's facts are both accurate
>and sufficiently complete (yes, that's a strong assumption). What should
>the National Spiritual Assembly do to correct this Assembly's behavior?
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
Dear Rick,
As you say, to proceed we will assume for the sake of argument that
the incidents presented as facts are both "accurate and sufficiently
complete". Anytime you hear from one side only there may or may not
be other details that are germane to the subject at hand.
Since we all know that the NSA has disbanded a LSA in the past, it has
in it's power to take action that would be less drastic. Would not
the removal of an assembly member from the assembly body, counseling,
deepening, advising or warning against certain behavior be in the
NSA's repertoire of jurisdiction prerogatives?
For example, the damage created in a local community to the prestige
of the Baha'i Faith from one person can be inordinate. An Assembly
member could conceivably continually display the qualities of
arrogance, pomposity, fanaticism and self righteousness. Even if that
person outwardly executes his/her duties within the community, he/she
will most assuredly alienate believers and seekers and possibly turn
them away from the very spirit in this Cause that the Assembly member
supposedly is upholding but is at the same time woefully demonstrating
the opposite of such spirit.
Now I don't know what happened but if we are to believe Nima, it
definitely sounds as if there were some egos totally out of control
and running amok.
Peace and love,
Chris
Randy Burns
I also found the same story on page 84 of Adib Taherzadeh's book The
Covenant of Baha'u'llah, but I appreciate the other source from God Passes
By.
Randy
--
Jay Paine <jayp...@lyndalls.globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:tf0vj1r...@xo.supernews.co.uk...
> Randy Burns wrote in message ...
>
Randy Burns
Nima Hazini <lotu...@wxc.com.au> wrote in message
news:9cq6kc$p85$1...@gnamma.connect.com.au...
>
> Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani was not a covenant breaker because he was never a
> Baha'i. Duh! Mirza Yahya Subh Azal was not a covenant breaker because he
was
> never a Baha'i. Duh! Azal could not have broken the covenant of the Bab,
> because he was its executor.
You could argue that Azal wasn't a covenant breaker (and indeed was not
treated like one) until the point at which he rejected the clear statement
of Baha'u'llah's that he was He Who Shall Be Manifest. At that point he
needed to either clearly demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was wrong and refute
him, or he should have pledge his allegiance to him. Basically he did
neither.
Are you trying to argue that Azal could never violate the pact of the Bab
under any circumstances? What a wonderful position that would be to have!
Sure maybe we know one or two people today who seem to rate that kind of
deal, but would you argue that it is right?
>Subh-e Azal NEVER claimed to be a Manifestation
> of God, as you have asserted several times before without substantiating.
If
> Yahya had claimed to be a Manifestation of God he would also have had to
> claim the station of Manyuzhiru'llah which he categorically denied about
all
> its numerous claimants in the 1850s and then later his own brother.
Technically you are probably right because Azal never carried thru his
threat to declare his own Manifestation, he gave it up as a bad joke. That
was one reason I asked for clarification on this.
>Yahya
> held the appearance of Him Whom Will Manifest would occur 2001 years after
> the Bab. How could he then have claimed that station if he believed this??
I
> suspect whatever source you have culled this information from you have
> either not read very carefully or the source is wrong.
Azal seemed capable of stating whatever he thought would bring the most
benefit to him under whatever circumstances prevailed. Obviously saying
that the next Manifestation would be in a couple thousand years would seem
to solidify his own position as head of Babi faith, but did he always
maintain this under every circumstance? It seems he might have wavered at
moments, tempted to do make a claim for himself.
What other available sources are worth reading on this subject? Any of
Browne's writings concerning Azal really worth reading?
Cheers, Randy
Nima Hazini
mazhar-e kolliyyeh amr-e ilahi because that would have entailed his claiming
the position of Manyuzhiru'llah which he believed would not appear until
years numbering the numerical value of the word Mustaghath (2001). The
confusion of Taherzadeh on this question arises from his rather poor reading
of Babi texts and understanding of the complex metaphysical doctrines in
Babism, no to mention Babi history. In Azali Babism, both the Bab and his
vicar - Mirza Yahya Nuri Subh-e Azal - are dualy referred to in laudatory
terms as the Nuqte-ye Ula (the Primal Point).
This fact comes from a rather of impenetrably complex and convoluted set of
mystico-esoteric propositions in Babi metaphysics which tends to confuse
people who are not familiar with it. Briefly the reason why Azal is referred
to as the Primal Point by Azalis is because he is held to be the Bab's
successor, vicar and executor. There is an assumption made by the Azalis
here that since the Bab was the Primal Point, all of his delegates and
representatives share in that "Primal Point-ness". This idea is firmly
grounded in radical Babi theophanology and doctrine and is the reason why in
Mazandaran at Shaykh Tabarsi Quddus, besides claiming other lofty titles and
stations for himself, also claimed the station of Primal Point. The Azalis
argue along the same lines. But this claim does NOT ipso facto mean that
Azal is claiming to be a Manifestation of God of the Bab's station and
equal. Such a claim would have sounded preposterous to those diehard Azali
partisans like Isfahani because earlier they had rejected Baha'u'llah for
claiming such.
What one makes of these ideas, is one thing. But to then retrospectively
conflate issues and call Azal a (false) claimant to manifestationhood and
thus a covenant breaker, whether of the dispensation of the Bab or
Baha'u'llah is quite another.
Since most of Western Baha'is like Roger have no knowledge of Persian and
Arabic to read texts and sources for themselves, let me suggest people at
least read E.G. Browne's translation of Hamadani's *Tarikh-e Jadid* and
MacEoin's articles in Kalimat Press' SBBR to learn about these questions in
earlier Babi history especially during the interregnum years of the 1850s.
cheers,
Nima
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:l_1I6.623$X65.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Nima Hazini
>Is it true that Mirza Yahya declared himself to be a >Manifestation of God?
No, it is false.
cheers,
Nima
Nima Hazini
"Randy Burns" <randy....@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Xk2I6.670$X65.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
Dear Nima
>You could argue that Azal wasn't a covenant breaker (and indeed was not
>treated like one) until the point at which he rejected the clear statement
>of Baha'u'llah's that he was He Who Shall Be Manifest. At that point he
>needed to either clearly demonstrate that Baha'u'llah was wrong and refute
>him, or he should have pledge his allegiance to him.
Not necessarily. You need to put this in a little historical context. In his
will and testament the Bab clearly nominates Mirza Yahya Nuri as his
successor. The why and wherefore and reasons that he did so remain a total
mystery to everyone, myself included. I have my theories, but cannot prove
them. However, there is no doubting that Azal was the Bab's chosen nominee
and vicar. During the interegnum years of the 1850s numerous claimants
arose - up to 25+ - claiming to be Him Whom God will Manifest. The Bab's
writing on the appearance of this figure are for the most part enigmatic,
paradoxical, often contradictory and impenetrably esoteric. Definitely not
as cut and dry as some Baha'is think them to be. In some places the number
2001 is given; in others 9 and sometimes other numbers besides. Sufficeth to
say Azal rejected every single one of these claimants, including later his
own brother, and even had one of them, Dayyan, assassinated. Some say he
encouraged the assassination but did not actually give the order, but in any
case these are the facts. What the Azali position essentially - to put it
quite simplistically - argues in its rejectionist stance is that the
dispensation of the Bayan must reach its maturity in order for Him Whom God
Will Manifest to appear, and the Bayan says as much explicitly. Only 19
years elapse from the Bab's declaration to that of Baha'u'llah, and thus the
Azalis argue it is therefore implausible for Him Whom God will Manifest to
be Baha'u'llah because how can a dispensation reach its maturity before most
of the injunctions, laws and ordinaces of the Bayan (like the formation of a
Babi state) are even implimented? Moreover, the vicar of the Bab is still
alive and the tasks given him by the Bab remain unfulfilled when Baha'u'llah
makes his claim.
From their own position they definitely have a valid point, and so they
remain thoroughly unconvinced by Baha'u'llah's revelatory verses and claims.
Moreover, Azal makes the same sort of imprecations about Baha'u'llah in his
writings as Baha'u'llah makes about Azal in his. Yet this period and the
circumstances surrounding the final separation between the Azali Babis and
Baha'is has been far oversimplified by certain Baha'i historians and is
really shrouded in mystery. Other sources give varying accounts - some more
biased than others - and the Azali sources do not shed much light on the
facts, either, and are not better, if not worse, than the Baha'i ones.
Manuchehri's forthcoming history will hopefully compensate for this lack and
shed some light on the circumstances of these events. Nevertheless it
remains that Taherzadeh and similar relate the history of these events in
conflated and skewed fashion, from their own respective sectarian points of
view and so must be taken with caution.
>Are you trying to argue that Azal could never violate the pact of the Bab
>under any circumstances? What a wonderful position that would be to have!
>Sure maybe we know one or two people today who seem to rate that kind of
>deal, but would you argue that it is right?
From a historical point of view, your rhetorical questions are meaningless.
We do not know what Azal's motivating intentions - or even those of
Baha'u'llah's, for that matter - were and to even guess it (as sectarian
religious historians are want to do) not only misses the point entirely but
obscures the complexity of the events, persons and situations we're dealing
with. If Baha'is want to hold to theologisms about Azal inherent evil, etc,
that is there prerogative. But it is not history.
>Technically you are probably right because Azal never carried thru his
>threat to declare his own Manifestation, he gave it up as a bad joke. That
>was one reason I asked for clarification on this.
Azal *never* claimed to be a Manifestation of God - period. This charge is
historically false and for the most part the fabrication of some sectarian
motivated Baha'i historians conflating their personal theologies with
historical events; which shades and colors the panorama and complexity of
the events to its own respective biases thereby. It is the characteristic of
heresiologies and heresiographers to often attribute things to ones enemy
that aren't necessarily true or are grossly taken out of context. There is a
fair share of this in Nabil and even by Hajj Mirza Jani, among others. None
of these sources, Baha'i and Azali alike, should be taken at face value. One
should actually take such theologistic histories with many grains of salt,
but at the same time sift for the facts.
>Azal seemed capable of stating whatever he thought would bring the most
>benefit to him under whatever circumstances prevailed.
Of course he would. He was the leader of a community, as would Baha'u'llah
for his. That's what religious leaders do.
> Obviously saying that the next Manifestation would be in a couple thousand
years would seem
>to solidify his own position as head of Babi faith,
That's one way to look at it, sure. On the other hand, one could also argue
that since he was the Bab's chosen vicar his position was already solidified
among orthodox Babis.
>but did he always
>maintain this under every circumstance?
Yes.
> It seems he might have wavered at
>moments, tempted to do make a claim for himself.
Source?? How could we know that? And besides "wavering" or "temptations" are
things we could never know about for certain. We can speculate but it is
plainly conjectural. In any case, there is no shred of evidence that Azal
claimed this position for himself. It is one among the numerous nasty things
attributed by Baha'is just as Azalis have attributed even nastier things to
Baha'u'llah.
>What other available sources are worth reading on this subject? Any of
>Browne's writings concerning Azal really worth reading?
Although some of his works are outdated now, everything written by E.G.
Browne is worth reading.
cheers,
Nima
Roger Reini
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Jay,
>
>Whatever else Shoghi Effendi was, he was not an objective historian as the
>intemperate language of your abstract shows. I would prefer to see
>information from other than sectarian sources; those which have no agenda to
>promote.
>
>After all Yahya was the appointed successor of the Bab and as such not the
>Covenant Breaker that Bahai folklore describes (a point well made by Nima
>some months ago)
Such successorship, and anything that went along with it, would have
ended upon the advent of the next Manifestation. Ergo, once
Baha'u'llah declared His mission, Mirza Yahya was relieved of his
duties.
Roger Reini
McKenny) wrote:
>Ad hominem and hence invalid. Issues, points, content is valid. What is
>said is valid. Who said it is invalid.
Not in this case. A Covenant breaker or a supporter of a CB would be
expected to engage in attacks on the legitimacy of the Administrative
Order in general and, in this day, the Universal House of Justice in
particular. This would be to gain support for their position -- their
rebellion, as it were.
And here we had someone attacking the House of Justice, someone who
had expressed sympathy for the views and positions of Mason Remey, who
falsely claimed the Guardianship for himself. That sets off warning
alerts for me.
>
>Roger Reini (ro...@rreini.com) writes:
>>
>> I tend to discount that person's opinion in this case because of other
>> opinions he has stated in this newsgroup -- opinions that, IMHO, are
>> in support of individuals who have broken the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
>> I am NOT calling him a Covenant breaker, for I have no knowledge of
>> his status in the Baha'i Faith. Still, if he is indeed a CB or a
>> supporter of CB's, then I discount any statement of his on the supreme
>> Baha'i institution and its legitimacy.
Michael McKenny
You have not demonstrated that you are arguing with validity. You
are arguing against persons because of who they are. This is invalid
according to formal logic and according to the principles of Baha'i
consultation which hold that issues alone are valid. Present issues,
but do not say (outside of a cult) that one is wrong because one does
not accept the cult leaderrship's position. You may defend the cult
leadership's position as cogently, rationally, articulately as you wish.
However, the cult leadership's position is not correct simply because
the leadership says it is, nor is someone else wrong simply because that
one disagrees with leadership. If leadership's view is so dazzlingly
correct tell us why; if one disagreeing with leadership is so blatantly
wrong show us on the issue. If you say this person is wrong on the
grounds he disagrees with the cult leaders you are, in my opinion,
testifying that you are powerless to refute his statements.
As I said on news.groups during the discussion about establishing TRB,
if the response by the US president to claims by someone that he was the
lawful King of the USA was to publically inform the American people that
there was someone asserting to be King of America, and for the good of
the country no one should read anything this guy had to say and his
supporters should be denied access to public media, then logically we'd
have to deduce that, By Zeus, there must really be something to this guy's
claims; gosh and golly gee, we'd always thought the US was a republic and
no possible legitimacy existed for anyone to claim to be a US king, but
the president's response shows there must be something to it. Similarily,
the response by official Baha'i leadership undermines their own position
and indicates there's something to the points being made by those they
don't want read.
Again, you may refute to your utmost capacity any points made, but
don't argue against people on the grounds of who they are or you are
confessing the superiority of their positions and your impotence to
show them wrong.
To Tolerance,
Michael
seegar
>Since Albuquerque has been in the Baha'i headlines lately, allow me to
>reminisce a little about some of my own experiences in perhaps one of the
Dear Nima,
Only goes to show that yahoo's populate every religion including the
Baha'i Community. It's not damning of the Baha'is - just a fact of
life that wacko's can be in any organizational structure regardless of
the fact that it be political, social or religious. Thankfully I've
had mostly positive experiences and nothing of the sort you mention.
According to your experience, this LSA sounds more along the lines of
a Catholic Spanish Inquisitional body from the 1500's. Thank God they
don't feel it in their power to burn witches at the stake. It would
have been desirable for the NSA to have monitored and corrected the
behavior of this LSA to prevent the violation of the spirit of the
Baha'i teachings which definitely occurred, if what you say is true.
Since when has it or is it in any LSA jurisdiction to confiscate a
seegar
Rick Schaut
"Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9cpo9d$eoq0u$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> "Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9cp5n...@news2.newsguy.com...
accurate
> > and sufficiently complete (yes, that's a strong assumption). What
should
> > the National Spiritual Assembly do to correct this Assembly's behavior?
> Shoot the bastards?
What a revolutionary idea!
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> As you say, to proceed we will assume for the sake of argument that
> the incidents presented as facts are both "accurate and sufficiently
> complete". Anytime you hear from one side only there may or may not
> be other details that are germane to the subject at hand.
Yes, and we should be all mindful of this. In essense, we're talking
hypothetical circumstances.
> Since we all know that the NSA has disbanded a LSA in the past, it has
> in it's power to take action that would be less drastic. Would not
> the removal of an assembly member from the assembly body, counseling,
> deepening, advising or warning against certain behavior be in the
> NSA's repertoire of jurisdiction prerogatives?
Yes, these would all be within the repertiore of the National Spiritual
Assembly. There are other actions that can be taken.
But, you still haven't answered the question. What would you do, and why?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
"Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9cs2js$4eo$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> Greetings, Roger.
> You have not demonstrated that you are arguing with validity. You
> are arguing against persons because of who they are.
Actually, I think he's arguing against someone for what they are trying to
do.
And, since you're still on this ad-hominem kick, you still haven't answered
a question I asked some time ago: how do we come to know about events that
occurred in the past?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
mult...@aros.net
In thqat case though undecalred you must be a covenant breaker since
you deny the Will and Testament and the continuing Guardianship under
the present AO.
Your posts are highly suspect.
On Thu, 03 May 2001 09:32:35 -0400, Roger Reini <ro...@rreini.com>
wrote:
seegar
>But, you still haven't answered the question. What would you do, and why?
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
>
>
Dear Rick,
You have asked me what I would do and why. Do you mean what actions
should the administrative order take if they were informed of these
facts as outlined by the original poster? If that is not what you mean
please advise. Furthermore if I understand correctly, you are asking
what should be done providing these "facts" as presented are both
"accurate and sufficiently complete."
To summarize, some of what I gleaned from Nima's account are the
following incidents:
An individual was a "spectator" in an anti-war rally and is
subsequently informed in a "curt" manner by the Assembly that he had
"participated" in a partisan political rally and so therefore was in
violation of Baha'i law. An Assembly member "states that Baha'u'llah
would support Operation Desert Storm and as such so should all Baha'is
without exception (regardless of whether they believed in the justness
or injustice of the war and the fight for America's Mid East petroleum
interests)". "Unsubstantiated charges and accusations were hurled
right and left by the LSA about my political activities" (What these
were is not mentioned).
An Assembly member personally requests photocopies of the pictures of
the Bab and Baha'u'llah to be made from a book taken out at a library
by an individual. Then the Assembly accuses that person of having made
photocopies of the pictures in
the book and distributing them all over New Mexico, and also
expressing alarm at the state of his soul for reading a book "by a
covenant breaker" even though the author was not a covenant breaker.
Then the Assembly demands that the person immediately surrender the
borrowed library book to the Assembly. The library borrower
subsequently becomes inactive.
Baha'is in the community spread rumors that there were wild swingers
parties and orgies at the home of a Baha'i where no such activity
occurred and subsequently the accused Baha'i leaves the Faith.
The Assembly pressures someone who is a witness involved in the
prosecution of an alleged sexual assault offender to forego his duty
as a citizen to be a witness for the City of Albuquerque.
An Assembly member says "I am God in this city and whatever I say is
His word"
As to what should be done considering the fact that there was
backbiting, alienation of believers, pressure to forego civic duties,
arrogant statements by Assembly member(s), requests for actions by an
Assembly member and then censure of a believer for doing what the
Assembly member had already requested that the believer do (photocopy
pictures), a person is a spectator at a public demonstration and later
the Assembly accuses same to be a participant.
To any impartial observer it would seem fair to say that there is
evidence of a dysfunctional community. Investigation by any
Administrative body that would oversee LSA's would be the first step,
including interviewing believers and ascertaining the facts. If these
"facts" turn out to be true then any one of a number of things should
be done including formal apologies to those wronged, consulting with
the Assembly, probation for Assembly members for continued membership
on that body for the more severe wrong doing mentioned and removal of
members from that body for continuing behavior of a sort after he/she
had been warned to not engage in said behavior.
Basicaly in my last post I had already indirectly implied what should
be done when I said in my last post: "Since we all know that the NSA
has disbanded a LSA in the past, it has in it's power to take action
that would be less drastic. Would not the removal of an assembly
member from the assembly body, counseling, deepening, advising or
warning against certain behavior be in the NSA's repertoire of
jurisdiction prerogatives?"
Rick if you mean what I would personally do if I was a member of that
community, then I would have to say that I would make a "big stink"
and meet with any and all AO bodies so that such wrong behavior by
that Assembly was well known.
If this further explanation helps your understanding of my displeasure
at incidents such as this and my feelings that they should be attended
to in order to help believers keep their faith in Baha'u'llah, I am
content.
Peace and love,
Chris
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9cs17...@news1.newsguy.com...
Heartily concur with your summation of my suggestion. Do you want to do the
shooting or shall I come on over and do it? Better still, shall we share
the job - turn and turn about? I'll start if that's OK with you.
Pat Kohli
Nima Hazini wrote:
> If Baha'is want to hold to theologisms about Azal inherent evil, etc,
> that is there prerogative. But it is not history.
As I recall the dogma, Azal was _not_ so much evil as weak, and allowed himself
to be influenced by Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani. I believe that that is where
Roger entered the conversation; Azal did what he did under the influence of an
evil man.
As far as breaking the covenant of the Bab, I think that that could be argued on
a Babi position as well as a Baha'i one. The Baha'i one can be simple -
whatever the Blessed Beauty said. The Babi one could entail a review of the
Bab's will - determining what Azal was responsible for, then reviewing the facts
to see how he discharged his responsibilities.
Was Azal responsible for the Bab's family? I don't know for sure, it is the
operating assumption among Baha'is. Azal allegedly married off one of the Bab's
wive's. I don't know the customs and the situation of Azal, but I suspect it
might be seen by some as failure to support the Bab's family. What was Azal's
role in various assisnations - I don't know - I do know that Baha'u'llah was
falsely blamed for one assasination.
KN!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
seegar
>> > Shoot the bastards?
> Do you want to do the
>shooting or shall I come on over and do it? Better still, shall we share
>the job - turn and turn about? I'll start if that's OK with you.
According to your line of reasoning you would have fit the bill as a
good little Nazi. Imagine the fun you could have had marching in poor
souls into the gas chambers.
What a sorry pathetic post. Not even humorous.
Sadly,
Chris
Dermod Ryder
Yeah! I'd make a good little Nazi marching the BIGS Nazis of the AO in front
of the firing squad or into the gas chambers. It'd sure make a nice change
from the way they have "executed" lots of people for "covenantly challenging
behaviour."
When US troops liberated Dachau in 1945, they were so horrified at what they
found that they summarily executed some 300 of the guards. If I get the
chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or acquiesced in the
crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
intended to be humourous. There's a big difference between marching
innocent people to the gas chamber and fundie AO freaks getting their just
desserts for their misdeeds and hypocrisy.
What a sorry pathetic reply. Not even accurate.
seegar
Dermond,
So let me see if I got this straight, you equate "hypocrisy" of the
Administrative Order as defined by you as being equal in horror to the
execution of millions in concentration camps. Furthermore, you state
that you would like to march Baha'is of the Administrative Order into
gas chambers or shoot them at a firing squad.
Since you seem to display a certain macho pride in your willingness to
commit violence, maybe you would like to share with us all your roster
of weapons that are stored in your home. Do you keep them at the
ready for such time when you completely flip your lid? When can we
anticipate you going postal? What is you favorite gun in your
collection that you are saving to began your plan of murder?
An interested observer in psychotic thinking and behavior,
Chris
Nima Hazini
facetiousness of Dermod's post.
cheers,
Nima
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af21c2a...@news-server.optonline.net...
Nima Hazini
"Pat Kohli" <kohliCUT...@ameritel.net> wrote in message
news:3AF1D6D7...@ameritel.net...
AA!
>As I recall the dogma, Azal was _not_ so much evil as weak, and allowed
himself
>to be influenced by Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani. I believe that that is where
>Roger entered the conversation; Azal did what he did under the influence of
an
>evil man.
Actually the picture is slightly different in the variant histories. Under
the influence of the evil Siyyid Muhammad Isfahani is another Baha'i myth.
That is not to say however that Isfahani was not an asshole. He probably
was. The point is that Azal was very much under the influence of his own
opinions and decisions, not anyone elses.
>As far as breaking the covenant of the Bab, I think that that could be
argued on
>a Babi position as well as a Baha'i one.
From a Baha'i POV, yes. From an orthodox Babi POV, no.
> The Baha'i one can be simple -
>whatever the Blessed Beauty said. The Babi one could entail a review of
the
>Bab's will - determining what Azal was responsible for, then reviewing the
facts
>to see how he discharged his responsibilities.
Yes, one could look at it that way. However, one could also argue that Azal
discharged most of his responsibilities as set forth in the Bab's will and
testament, such as his writing of the Mutamim al-Bayan, which Azalis look at
as the completion of the Bayan; that is as an afterthought.
>Was Azal responsible for the Bab's family?
Protection, maybe. Responsible, no. But that isn't the question being
debated here. Sure what Azal did in regards to "sigheh"-ing the Bab's wife
for himself and Isfahani is most blameworthy. The original point of
contention was whether Azal had claimed to be a Manifestation of God a la
the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and the answer is a resounding no - he most
certainly did not. Fair is fair.
> I don't know the customs and the situation of Azal, but I suspect it
>might be seen by some as failure to support the Bab's family.
The question is about protecting the Bab's honour here in that a man's women
folk constituted a man's honour in pre-modern Iranian Islamic society. That
Azal flagrantly disavowed the Bab's specific instruction in this regard that
no one had a right to his wives is the issue, not necessarily support or
even protection of the Bab's family.
>What was Azal's
>role in various assisnations - I don't know - I do know that Baha'u'llah
was
>falsely blamed for one assasination.
That of Isfahani in Akka, yes he was. Azal did however have a track record
of sanctioning political assassinations and Manuchehri has uncovered
evidence which finally proves Azal's central role in the Takur rebellion and
the subsequent assassination attempt on the life of Nasiruddin Shah shortly
thereafter. Azim Turshizi acted completely with Azal's blessings. Same goes
for the assassination of Dayyan later in Baghdad, although there is some
question here as to whether Azal actually gave the order to commit this
heinous act.
cheers,
Nima
seegar
wrote:
>Umm, Chris, I think you completely misunderstood the tongue in cheek
>facetiousness of Dermod's post.
>
>cheers,
>Nima
Dear Nima,
Au contraire, your interpretation of his intent is mistaken. I think
an impartial observer may interpret that he is not playing with a full
deck. Futhermore, Dermond's disclosure of violent, murderous
intentions towards Baha'is is now public record and should be of
interest to law enforcement authorities when any harm comes to a
Baha'i from violent cause.
From Dermonds own post:
On Thu, 3 May 2001 20:22:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
"the post wasn't intended to be humourous".
Peace and love,
Chris
Nima Hazini
Chris,
You haven't been around the Pale Ryder long enough to know him well enough
like I do. I think you have misunderstood his words and are taking his
rhetorical hyperbole way too literally. Lighten up there a little and learn
something about the raucous Irish sense of humour.
But since we're on the subject of violence, what do you say when physical
harm comes to non-Baha'is by violent means (i.e. an assault of 4 individuals
against 1) at the hands of Baha'is?
cheers,
Nima
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af24099...@news-server.optonline.net...
seegar
>You haven't been around the Pale Ryder long enough to know him well enough
>like I do. I think you have misunderstood his words and are taking his
>rhetorical hyperbole way too literally. Lighten up there a little and learn
>something about the raucous Irish sense of humour.
>
>But since we're on the subject of violence, what do you say when physical
>harm comes to non-Baha'is by violent means (i.e. an assault of 4 individuals
>against 1) at the hands of Baha'is?
Dear Nima,
I don't mean to offend you by saying this but your apologetic defense
of Demod is very lame. Everyone here knows what he said when he said
the following:
>On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
><Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or acquiesced in the
>crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
>And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
>intended to be humourous.
So much for Irish humor! Nima, maybe you need to read Demod's posts
more carefully. Do you get it?-He said he didn't intend to be
humorous-his words, not mine.
I am against all haters and perpetrators of violence, and I think my
impartiality has been established by echoing
your indignation as chronicled by you (if what you say is the complete
truth-I don't know, I wasn't there) of your outrageous
treatment handed to you by the Albuquerque LSA. You don't need to
frame a question in that manner. If you know of violence committed on
non-Baha'is, I think you can already guess where I would stand.
Peace and love,
Chris
Nima Hazini
Dear Chris,
I did say Dermod was being hyperbolic! Surely he wouldn't seriously
entertain the idea of killing Baha'i since he's married to one. He jests and
he's justifiably pissed off at some of the incredibly ignorant things he's
seen written by some Baha'is, and can't say I blame him. Of course some of
the Baha'is here on trb who piss me off from time to time unbeknownst to
them inadvertently contribute to some of my best workouts on a punching bag
and so I thank them for keeping me in good shape for the past couple of
years :))
cheers,
Nima
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af25361...@news-server.optonline.net...
>On Fri, 4 May 2001 16:38:13 +1000, "Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au>
wrote:
Dermod Ryder
Wow! We have got the old knickers in a twist! And that can be painful!!!!
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af21c2a...@news-server.optonline.net...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
> Dermond,
First thing is .... SPELLING! Do correct that - it's not difficult!
>
> So let me see if I got this straight, you equate "hypocrisy" of the
> Administrative Order as defined by you as being equal in horror to the
> execution of millions in concentration camps. Furthermore, you state
> that you would like to march Baha'is of the Administrative Order into
> gas chambers or shoot them at a firing squad.
Has anybody got a better idea?
> Since you seem to display a certain macho pride in your willingness to
> commit violence, maybe you would like to share with us all your roster
> of weapons that are stored in your home.
Geez - where do I begin? Well for a start there's the carving knife
(electric) that Mrs Reaper constantly threatens me with, the Chain Saw that
I had to remove from my mother in law when she came to visit us and, of
course, we have razor wire, searchlights, minefields and machine guns with
interlocking fields of fire surrounding the house and all to protect me from
the local BIGS
> Do you keep them at the
> ready for such time when you completely flip your lid?
Indeed yes! Sadly we have to remain at a constant state of readiness - one
never knows when troops of BIGS will suddenly appear charging up the slopes
to get me. It's a difficult life but one I'm not prepared to give up on,
just yet! I know that someday they may get me but until then .....
You asked about flipping the lid - you know I've never been able to do that
properly ... I can flip it up in the air and get it to do a two and a half
somersault with a double twist, but I've never been able to catch it on the
way down. Any helpful suggestions?
> When can we
> anticipate you going postal?
When the postal charges become more reasonable. You just wouldn't believe
the cost of sending a package from here to the USA!
> What is you favorite gun in your
> collection that you are saving to began your plan of murder?
I've only got one and its not for fighting!
Dermod Ryder
I think you should listen to Uncle Nima and take some of that starch out of
your life!
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af24099...@news-server.optonline.net...
Try sardonic, sarcastic, ironic, twisted, satirical, but definitely not
humourous! And try that spelling again!
Do you really think that if I was going to assault or murder BIGS or anybody
else I would advertise the fact on the Internet? Get a life and wise up!
Irish humour is extremely robust and designed to wind people up. It is
something BIGS should cultivate as it is essentially a community building
initiative aimed at deflating the pompous, taking the piss out of the
opinionated and reminding anybody with aspirations to greatness that there
is always somebody smarter out there, ready, willing and able to do the
same.
Dermod Ryder
"seegar" <cal...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3af25361...@news-server.optonline.net...
> >On Fri, 4 May 2001 16:38:13 +1000, "Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au>
wrote:
> >You haven't been around the Pale Ryder long enough to know him well
enough
> >like I do. I think you have misunderstood his words and are taking his
> >rhetorical hyperbole way too literally. Lighten up there a little and
learn
> >something about the raucous Irish sense of humour.
> >
> >But since we're on the subject of violence, what do you say when physical
> >harm comes to non-Baha'is by violent means (i.e. an assault of 4
individuals
> >against 1) at the hands of Baha'is?
>
> Dear Nima,
>
> I don't mean to offend you by saying this but your apologetic defense
> of Demod is very lame. Everyone here knows what he said when he said
> the following:
There's that spelling again and it ain't even consistent! Guess somebody's
cage is well rattled!
>
> >On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> ><Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or
acquiesced in the
> >crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
> >And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
> >intended to be humourous.
>
> So much for Irish humor! Nima, maybe you need to read Demod's posts
> more carefully. Do you get it?-He said he didn't intend to be
> humorous-his words, not mine.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
> I am against all haters and perpetrators of violence, and I think my
> impartiality has been established by echoing
> your indignation as chronicled by you (if what you say is the complete
> truth-I don't know, I wasn't there) of your outrageous
> treatment handed to you by the Albuquerque LSA.
I just love that qualification - "I don't know, I wasn't there" - it takes
the whole substance away and leaves you in the clear when the ABM calls.
And since Dubya is abrogating the limitation of ABMs Treaty with Moscow, I
expect there will be more of them appointed around and about the community
to provide a defence against rogue enemies.
>You don't need to
> frame a question in that manner. If you know of violence committed on
> non-Baha'is, I think you can already guess where I would stand.
As far away as possible from the violence???
With non-Bahai Love,
The Grim Reaper AKA The Pale Rider
Rick Schaut
> >On Thu, 3 May 2001 09:50:09 -0700, "Rick Schaut"
<RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> >But, you still haven't answered the question. What would you do, and
why?
[Big snippage.]
I didn't ask for a recounting of the alleged facts. I asked you what you
would do, and why. So, why recount the alleged facts? Did you, for some
reason, think I wouldn't remember them?
> Investigation by any
> Administrative body that would oversee LSA's would be the first step,
> including interviewing believers and ascertaining the facts. If these
> "facts" turn out to be true then any one of a number of things should
> be done including formal apologies to those wronged, consulting with
> the Assembly, probation for Assembly members for continued membership
> on that body for the more severe wrong doing mentioned and removal of
> members from that body for continuing behavior of a sort after he/she
> had been warned to not engage in said behavior.
Thanks, Chris, for getting around to answering the question. With that,
I'll have to confess to an ulterior motive in asking the question. I rather
suspected, and your answer confirms, that people are reacting to their
indignation over the allegations rather than turning to the Writings to see
if there might not be specific guidance that deals with these issues.
The point, however, isn't malicious. Clearly, the Local Spiritual Assembly
isn't following the principles and guidance that forms the pattern of Baha'i
Administration. However, we aren't going to correct it by also failing to
follow those same principles and guidance in our own actions. Nor, for that
matter, would the National Spiritual Assembly accomplish much if it doesn't
base its own actions, to the best of its ability, on those guidelines and
patterns.
So, if we want to critique how the National Spiritual Assembly either has,
or hasn't, handled these matters, we have to begin by understanding those
guidelines that govern how they're supposed to be responding to these
matters. Untill we do that, all we're doing is pitting our own, personal
opinions against those of the elected institutions.
This might be how popular politics is conducted in most western democracies,
but such is the root of the insane cacophony that characterises public
discourse in most of these democracies. People don't stop to identify the
applicable principles, and then apply those principles to the known facts.
The end result is pure emotionalism.
There are a number of serious problems within the Baha'i Faith. We aren't
going to solve them, however, by turning the Baha'i Faith into the mirror
image of modern western democracies. All of us have to begin striving for
something better than that, or we're just wasting our time.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Nima Hazini
is at this time no better system(s) in existence other than Western liberal
democracies and to think there is one is to be either a hopeless utopian
dreamer entangled in paradigms of pure fantasy or to delude oneself just as
generations of naive idealistic Marxists did with their impratical agendas
of radical social transformation and revolution and movements towards
classless societies via dictatorships of the proletariat as represented by
vanguard parties. People who aren't good students of modern history don't
seem to realize that everytime anti-discourses against Western liberal
democracies are adopted the consequences are the roads which lead straight
to the gulags, concentration camps and totalitarianism in one form or
another. Religion in the private arena by definition is totalitarian because
it makes totalistic demands and "leaps of blind faith" how much more so if
it is in control of the public realm. This is why when the last two
theocracies in the world, Iran and Afghanistan, finally collapse in the near
future, theocracy as a model will be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Liberal democracies aren't perfect, and they're not supposed to be. Just as
life itself on all levels is a project forever in progress, so is the
Western liberal democratic principle and model. Get used it. It and its
principles and modifications thereof will be with us into the forseable
future. Your grandchildren and their progeny will never live under a Baha'i
superstate, commonwealth or similar. But they will live under liberal
democracies of one form or another.
cheers,
Nima
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9ctvm...@news2.newsguy.com...
Michael McKenny
A democrat may be trying to become president, a reporter may be
trying to sell papers, a poet may be trying to rhyme verse, a farmer
may be trying to obtain seed for his crops; however, points against the
arguments of any and all of these people should these people be posting
remarks critical of Bush Jr. (or the Shrub as I've heard him called) 's
Star Wars II balloon, are invalid if they address the motivation of these
people. Star Wars II is a good or a bad idea based on issues. The biases
of those arguing for or against Star Wars II are invalid. 2 plus 2 is 4
and this notwithstanding the fact one holding that is a math teacher or
biased in favour of greater or lesser exposure of students to books, TV
or pop corn.
You do not prove someone wrong on the issue of fighting crime by
making comments about the person (he is a police officer) or his biased
motivation (he wants more funding for law enforcement). Address the
issue of increased spending for law enforcement as articulately as you
wish. All remarks about the person you're addressing are invalid.
I address your second point separately.
Thrive,
Michael
Michael McKenny
Ah, a question where I can refer to my studies on Celtic
Reconstructionism. We know what we know about Celtic Paganism because of
what was written down by Classical authors at the time, by Christian monks
after the introduction of Christianity and according to archaeological
finds. Some archaeological evidence is quite fascinating, dendrochronology
for example providing precise dates (to the year) for events happening in
pre-historic time and place.
Another means of knowing what happened is oral tradition. This was
supposedly the sole method of the ancient Celts who had quite impressive
training of those responsible for remembering and transmitting their
heritage.
Thanks for the question.
To Freedom of Thought and Expression in Baha'i,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:>
> And, since you're still on this ad-hominem kick, you still haven't answered
> a question I asked some time ago: how do we come to know about events that
> occurred in the past?
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
Michael McKenny
Speaking of Irish humour, did you ever read "The Tablet of the Nine
Brewers"? This was one of my earliest posts to Baha'i cyberspace when all
I intended was to lighten up a Baha'i e-list. It suggested, if I recall
correctly, among other things that the Baha'i World Centre be moved to
Tara. At least one person on the list missed the humour to the extent of
posting his doubts as to the authenticity of the tablet. If you haven't
read it let me know and I'll try to dig up a copy. I can't recall whether
there's a copy at the solarguard site.
To A Pint and More of Laughter,
Michael
"Dermod Ryder" (Grim_Re...@btinternet.com) writes:
> Cigar,
>
> I think you should listen to Uncle Nima and take some of that starch out of
> your life!
>
>
> something BIGS should cultivate as it is essentially a community building
> initiative aimed at deflating the pompous, taking the piss out of the
> opinionated and reminding anybody with aspirations to greatness that there
> is always somebody smarter out there, ready, willing and able to do the
> same.
>
>
>
>
Michael McKenny
The Canadian NSA, possibly Doug Martin himself, wrote to the
government of Canada that Democracy was the best form of government
(citing Churchill's famous quote that it is the worst form of government
except for all the rest). You've been striving so hard to be
anti-democratic that you've become a mirror image of other despicable
regimes. The principles of the independent investigation of truth, the
freedom of thought and expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the
equality of women and men, the freedom of association of those holding
a variety of valid personal opinions, etc. are principles in the writings
of Baha'u'llah. That Doug Martin now joins with Kiser and the other seven
men on the mountain to ignore, denigrate and fulminate against these as
democratic ideals puts them in the same league as those individuals,
systems and idealogies whom citizens of all countries justly opposed, even
at the cost of their lives.
To refer to Churchill and the Canadian NSA (possibly Doug Martin in
one of his more reasonable moments) emulating democratic practise is the
worst thing you could do, except for all the others.
To Democratic Procedure Within Baha'i,
Michael
"Rick Schaut" (rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> There are a number of serious problems within the Baha'i Faith. We aren't
> going to solve them, however, by turning the Baha'i Faith into the mirror
> image of modern western democracies. All of us have to begin striving for
> something better than that, or we're just wasting our time.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
Arfarf5215
> The Canadian NSA, possibly Doug Martin himself, wrote to the
>government of Canada that Democracy was the best form of government
>(citing Churchill's famous quote that it is the worst form of government
>except for all the rest). You've been striving so hard to be
>anti-democratic that you've become a mirror image of other despicable
>regimes. The principles of the independent investigation of truth, the
>freedom of thought and expression, the harmony of faith and reason, the
>equality of women and men, the freedom of association of those holding
>a variety of valid personal opinions, etc. are principles in the writings
>of Baha'u'llah. That Doug Martin now joins with Kiser and the other seven
>men on the mountain to ignore, denigrate and fulminate against these as
>democratic ideals puts them in the same league as those individuals,
>systems and idealogies whom citizens of all countries justly opposed, even
>at the cost of their lives.
> To refer to Churchill and the Canadian NSA (possibly Doug Martin in
>one of his more reasonable moments) emulating democratic practise is the
>worst thing you could do, except for all the others.
> To Democratic Procedure Within Baha'i,
> Michael
So Michael I must assume that what you have written above is "invalid" as it is
a clear ad hominem.... I think that's how the mantra goes......
Pat Kohli
seegar wrote:
> I don't mean to offend you by saying this but your apologetic defense
> of Demod is very lame. Everyone here knows what he said when he said
> the following:
>
> >On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> ><Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or acquiesced in the
> >crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
> >And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
> >intended to be humourous.
>
Dermod, sorry to spell out your 'trade secrets' but I wouldn't want Seegar complaining to
Scotland Yard about a Murderous Rogue - think of the pounds wasted in that investiagation
while there are real criminals afoot.
Seegar, yes he definitely said it and it seemed to me that he was quite insistent.
There are a few angles here, the between the lines: 1) Dermod will likely say _anything_ that
he thinks will rattle / intimidate enrolled Baha'is loyal to the AO who will give him a
passing glance. 2) Dermod, however seemingly worked up he may be, is constitutionally
predisposed _against_ any sort of deliberate violence - that is how he got hooked in with the
Cause. Sure, if some blackguard tried to shove a little old lady around, maybe Dermod would
slap him up, but only in an immediate sense to end the violence. 3) Though I might be
prdisposed to explain myself after I got someone spun up, I don't believe that Dermod will
(one of the differences between us); for all I know, if you keep it up, he may threaten to
come over to your home some night and drown your pet goldfish.
>
> So much for Irish humor! Nima, maybe you need to read Demod's posts
> more carefully.
So, are you even on Dermod's "Cigar" thing?
Listen to uncle Nima on this one. It is a lot like Italian humor, or Wisconsin humor.
> Do you get it?-He said he didn't intend to be
> humorous-his words, not mine.
Welcome to unmoderated newsgroups on the Baha'i Faith.
Blessings!
- Pat
kohli2ameritel.net
Rick Schaut
> A democrat may be trying to become president, a reporter may be
> trying to sell papers, a poet may be trying to rhyme verse, a farmer
> may be trying to obtain seed for his crops; however, points against the
> arguments of any and all of these people should these people be posting
> remarks critical of Bush Jr
What about comments as to claims of fact that these people make to support
their arguments?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Another means of knowing what happened is oral tradition. This was
> supposedly the sole method of the ancient Celts who had quite impressive
> training of those responsible for remembering and transmitting their
> heritage.
In other words, we have to rely on the testimony of witnesses. Does not the
credibility of those witness become a legitimate issue when we have to rely
on their testimony?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
seegar
wrote:
>Dear Chris,
>
>I did say Dermod was being hyperbolic! Surely he wouldn't seriously
>entertain the idea of killing Baha'i since he's married to one. He jests
Dear Nima,
Well I guess we will all have to rely on you as the authorized
interpreter for Dermod. Otherwise, the alternative is without you to
hold his hand and explain his posts we will all be in the dark and
have to view his posts as babbling nonsense. I guess Dermod hasn't
quite mastered the art of saying what he means according to you.
Although contrary to your apologies for him, he has said he meant what
he said and did not mean to be humorous.
When given the chance to clarify himself in his next post he posts the
following:
>On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:24:36 +0100, "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> So much for Irish humor! Nima, maybe you need to read Demod's posts
>> more carefully. Do you get it?-He said he didn't intend to be
>> humorous-his words, not mine.
>Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......
So much for an explanation, he's sleeping.
So Nima, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. I'm not buying
what you're selling.
Peace and love,
Chris
Rick Schaut
> You've been striving so hard to be
> anti-democratic that you've become a mirror image of other despicable
> regimes.
This is ad hominem. It's also a pathetically inaccurate characterization of
my remarks.
For the record, here's what I said:
> "Rick Schaut" (rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> > There are a number of serious problems within the Baha'i Faith. We
aren't
> > going to solve them, however, by turning the Baha'i Faith into the
mirror
> > image of modern western democracies. All of us have to begin striving
for
> > something better than that, or we're just wasting our time.
Please note the last sentence.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
seegar
Dear Dermod,
You post:
>>On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
>><Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or acquiesced in the
>>crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
>>And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
>>intended to be humourous.
then we get the following:
>>On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:07:44 +0100, "Dermod Ryder" <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>Do you really think that if I was going to assault or murder BIGS or anybody
>else I would advertise the fact on the Internet? Get a life and wise up!
Me thinks you are doing a little jig and changing your tune. Well,
maybe now you realize advertising isn't the best way to hide your
true thoughts and intentions-who can tell in your case? You spin a
different yarn depending on your mood. Get a life yourself and
reconsider the wisdom and morality of your bombastic pronoucements of
hate.
Peace and love,
Chris
Pat Kohli
seegar wrote:
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 18:18:33 +1000, "Nima Hazini" <lotu...@wxc.com.au>
> wrote:
> >Dear Chris,
> >
> >I did say Dermod was being hyperbolic! Surely he wouldn't seriously
> >entertain the idea of killing Baha'i since he's married to one. He jests
>
> Dear Nima,
>
> Well I guess we will all have to rely on you as the authorized
> interpreter for Dermod. Otherwise, the alternative is without you to
> hold his hand and explain his posts we will all be in the dark and
> have to view his posts as babbling nonsense. I guess Dermod hasn't
> quite mastered the art of saying what he means according to you.
Dermod has mastered his art. It is like Wagner, dialed up to 11; it is on multiple bands and
multiple sensors. It is orchestrated and intentionally overwhelming. If it were not so, I
would not be telling you this, or trying to tell you this.
>
> Although contrary to your apologies for him, he has said he meant what
> he said and did not mean to be humorous.
If not humorous, than dermodous, a perfectly cromulent word meaning full of meanings written
between the lines in bold faced font.
I don't agree with what Dermod is saying, but I aspire to better appreciate _how_ he says it.
Read "Finnagan's Wake"; a few pages here and a few more pages there and you'll get the picture
and be thankful you have Dermod to read, rather than that other Irishman. You are seeing art
when you read Dermod.
Blessings!
- Pat
ko...@ameritel.net
seegar
>I just love that qualification - "I don't know, I wasn't there" - it takes
>the whole substance away and leaves you in the clear when the ABM calls.
Well, I guess unlike you(?) I would need corroboration and proof
before I would form a solid opinion.
And, they can call, I have my own ideas. Nobody controls me. You on
the other hand seem to advocate giving up the control we have when we
independently investigate to substantiate claims. I guess accepting
someone statements at face value and then going on a tirade of attack
would be more to your way of thinking. Hmmm?
>>You don't need to
>> frame a question in that manner. If you know of violence committed on
>> non-Baha'is, I think you can already guess where I would stand.
>
>As far away as possible from the violence???
Lame.
>
>With non-Bahai Love,
>
Thanks.
Peace and love,
Chris
seegar
>
>Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nima's facts are both accurate
>and sufficiently complete (yes, that's a strong assumption). What should
>the National Spiritual Assembly do to correct this Assembly's behavior?
>
>
>Regards,
>Rick Schaut
Well Rick, how about answering your own question? What should be done?
I don't claim to be the answer man on administrative procedures.
Peace and love,
Chris
Dermod Ryder
>
> Dear Dermod,
>
> You post:
>
> >>On Fri, 4 May 2001 01:52:38 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
> >><Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >>If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or
acquiesced in the
> >>crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out.
> >>And yup - fundies are sad pathetic little squirts and the post wasn't
> >>intended to be humourous.
>
> then we get the following:
>
>
> >>On Fri, 4 May 2001 10:07:44 +0100, "Dermod Ryder"
<Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >Do you really think that if I was going to assault or murder BIGS or
anybody
> >else I would advertise the fact on the Internet? Get a life and wise up!
>
> Me thinks you are doing a little jig and changing your tune.
More like a reel - laying the bait and reeling in the "eedjits" who snap at
it!
>Well,
> maybe now you realize advertising isn't the best way to hide your
> true thoughts and intentions-who can tell in your case? You spin a
> different yarn depending on your mood. Get a life yourself and
> reconsider the wisdom and morality of your bombastic pronoucements of
> hate.
I hate to point this out to you but yours is the mind full of hate - all I
said was
"If I get the chance to take out a fundie BIGS who has been a part of or
acquiesced in the
crimes committed by the AO, I'll take the SOB out."
You're the one who ascribed an intent of violence to these words. FYI to
"take out" means anything from "kill" to "expose" or take out of the closet
to expose to the public disapproval. And yes I will take such people out
and hang them out to dry not out of hatred but of the need to expose their
intolerance, hypocrisy and rancorous bigotry. Unlike many on this list I
have lived with and seen religious bigotry up close and personal all of my
life. I know its corrosive appeal up close and personal - I've seen it at
the graveside.
But you're right in one respect - I am consumed with hatred - of hatred,
bigotry and prejudice. That ultimately is why I rejected the AF - it is
full of the seeds of religious intolerance which have sprouted and bloomed
in the rantings of the apologists of the AO. The ascribing of "murderous
intent" to one who is otherwise noted for his idiosyncratic humour is but
one example of that. It is a part of the AO Rules of Engagement to attack
the person rather than that he stands for. But then you have never seen the
results of religious prejudice at first hand - never seen the blood or the
ground meat after a bombing, never been to a wake where the coffin is closed
because all that is within is the "non-viewable" pulped flesh of hatred.
And at the very core of that religious hatred is the belief that "our" creed
is so much superior to that of everybody else, that there is nothing wrong
with our creed and that those who dare say otherwise are of the Evil One.
FYI at the heart of the Bahai Cause is "justice" and justice does not
provide for the whitewashing of the tyranny that is at the heart of the AO
or the less than full pursuit of those whose modus operandi is the venting
of self-assumed superiority for their own nefarious aggrandisement.
"And I looked and beheld a pale rider: and his name that sat on him
was Death and Hell followed with him"
Nima Hazini
and its implication is plainly evident. Michael hit the nail on the head.
You are tacitly admitting to your contempt of Western liberal democracies
and its principles with that last sentence. How perfectly unAmerican of you.
cheers,
Nima
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9cukp...@news1.newsguy.com...
John Woodlock
> Dermod has mastered his art. It is like Wagner, dialed up to 11; it is on
multiple bands and
> multiple sensors. It is orchestrated and intentionally overwhelming. If
it were not so, I
> would not be telling you this, or trying to tell you this.
>
thought etc but reckon that to consider him a master is not useful. Tell
you what, I think Seegar has called him on this thread very effectively and
it will be interesting to see Dermod's 'further' reaction (what does a big
man do???). So far Dermod has been faultering and weak in his response but
I think in his depth he can overcome this, maybe. I have to commend Seegar
on his ability to say it as he/she calls it (sorry i dont know what gender
chris is). In a weird way I think even Dermod should count his blessings
for Seegars forthright observations.
> >
> > Although contrary to your apologies for him, he has said he meant what
> > he said and did not mean to be humorous.
>
> If not humorous, than dermodous, a perfectly cromulent word meaning full
of meanings written
> between the lines in bold faced font.
>
Nice simpsons reference if i'm right. The 'embiggens' bit in the same
simpsons episode being equally important, far better than the 'emsquirts'
Dermod equivalent.
> I don't agree with what Dermod is saying, but I aspire to better
appreciate _how_ he says it.
> Read "Finnagan's Wake"; a few pages here and a few more pages there and
you'll get the picture
> and be thankful you have Dermod to read, rather than that other Irishman.
You are seeing art
> when you read Dermod.
yes, Joyce is difficult. Question is, was the 'difficulty' beauty or was it
bollox. Subjective question. I personally think that the Irish writers
were/are given far too much kudos, a lot of the time the 'English' admired
the 'different way' Irish writers expressed themselves (oftentimes just
based on being born in a culture where the type of language they expressed
was normative). Today, Pat, some Irish writers make the most of this effect
and I think that most of them are 'quite awful' in a literature sense.
Joyce tho, I think, was great (whatever one believes about the originality
of his 'stream of consciousness' bits). Also, Beckett, who Joyce said
'would priskly soon handtune Erin's ear'. But you have to look at the time
too. They did 'it' in Paris early 20th century (where the action was).
Even Joyce's statement about his 'son' Beckett uses both english and french
(i.e. priskly is the french 'soon' in hybrid way as well as probably meaning
prickly or a thorn in the side). Not controversially, Yeats is my main
Irish writer (his poems specifically). But you know maybe them days of
poetry are gone. Yeats was into spiritual/occult stuff as well but mainly
what i got from the beat of his poems was a spiritual person with a love for
irish people and an inspiration to betterment to the irish people even if
his public sayings and perception seemed more critical of the 'little land'.
Funny things is of course, Dermot's sometimes references to irish humor.
hmmmm. There is a big difference this last century or so between culture in
northern ireland (where dermod lives) and the republic. It might as well be
between the 'republic' and 'some other country in africa'. So don't take
the Irish thing to heart too much because there isn't one irishness
(unfortunately). I wonder does Dermot realise how different it is? I'm not
talking about creating a binary here but just that because of unfortunate
circumstances the thinking is very different. When Dermot says Irish he
mean Northern Irish (UK). Yes, the come together of peoples (irish and uk)
is wished for etc. but all he expresses is not common practise at all.
Anyway, I don't think Dermod's posts are art. To me they are a reflection
of Dermod's perception of his interaction with the OA and his understanding
of the internet discussions - "if 'they' are extreme I'll be extreme" (fair
enough).
I might say I'd prefer all his posts to be truthful (I know that some
haven't been) but then again if its sort of symbolic I guess I understand
what Nima says about finding humour there. Then again the same courtesy
should be extended to the 'opposite' maybe personified by Rick. I think to
continually peck Rick is to refuse to see his humanity, and 'what ho', he
responds in kind :)
But anyway, I think most of us here on trb/arb would like to have ice-cream
with you Pat. I'd go so far as I'd want to seek you as a personal friend.
God/life bless you and yours in an exhaled hug!
john
Dermod Ryder
news:9d0gra$kdb$1...@bugstomper.ihug.com.au...
> I have to disagree Pat. I would generally encourage Dermod's line of
> thought etc but reckon that to consider him a master is not useful.
Thank you John! My sentiments entirely, although being human, I could not
but feel a warm glow at Pat's comments, which were flattering but incorrect.
>Tell
> you what, I think Seegar has called him on this thread very effectively
and
> it will be interesting to see Dermod's 'further' reaction (what does a big
> man do???). So far Dermod has been faultering and weak in his response
but
> I think in his depth he can overcome this, maybe. I have to commend
Seegar
> on his ability to say it as he/she calls it (sorry i dont know what gender
> chris is). In a weird way I think even Dermod should count his blessings
> for Seegars forthright observations.
We shall see how Cigar responds - however I don't think he has "called" me
on this thread. He took a comment that was pointedly and deliberately
ambivalent and interpreted it as an indicator of violent intent. But then
again "violence" is not far from the surface in the AF - Bahais killed
Azalis, they day and daily practice the "violence" of shunning; they regard
themselves as having a right to seek to suppress those they deem inimical to
their cause. What was the disenrollment of Michael and Alison but an act of
"violence"? What was Birkland's call on Juan but an act of "intimidation"?
In such a culture, of course, it is but natural to see "violence" in every
critical remark and to attempt to use that to denigrate the opponent. Always
try your wash your own faults onto the opponent!
But as you note full marks to him for calling it and fuller marks for his
comments about the assault on Nima and there's that violence again.
> <SNIP>
>
> Funny things is of course, Dermot's sometimes references to irish humor.
> hmmmm. There is a big difference this last century or so between culture
in
> northern ireland (where dermod lives) and the republic. It might as well
be
> between the 'republic' and 'some other country in africa'. So don't take
> the Irish thing to heart too much because there isn't one irishness
> (unfortunately). I wonder does Dermot realise how different it is? I'm
not
> talking about creating a binary here but just that because of unfortunate
> circumstances the thinking is very different. When Dermot says Irish he
> mean Northern Irish (UK). Yes, the come together of peoples (irish and uk)
> is wished for etc. but all he expresses is not common practise at all.
There isn't one "Irish" in all things but there are many Irish things that
are common to all on the island. There is indeed a great difference twixt
North and South - the Northerners (of whom I am proud to be one) tend to be
a foul-mouthed, harder, blunter type than the Southerners. Generalisations
are notoriously inaccurate but, forgetting that for a moment, a Northerner
will be more inclined to tell you what exactly he thinks of you, will
readily advise you to "F*** Off!" and not tolerate prevarication or
procrastination in the response. They pride themselves on being "hard" men,
their work ethic and a detestation of snobbery. They take orders from none
but will willingly accede to any polite request. That stems from the blend
of the Lowland Scottish Protestant planter tradition with the Southern Irish
Catholic. Even within Northern Ireland there are great local differences in
attitude. My influences straddle North and South - the family is and has
been on both sides. Favourite areas in the South are Dublin and "Wesht
Cork" where I have spent many happy and often inebriated hours. The pointed
and barbed humour is very much more a feature of the North - the influence
of a very troubled history which many have handled with a cynical,
self-deprecatory humour, which runs deep within the populace. It is
furthermore an oral tradition rather than a written one - the full impact is
lost in the written medium.
I use "Irish" as a geographical term and in a broad cultural and racial
sense. None of us likes to be equated with or thought of as English or West
Brit. There is a possibly even greater detestation of things English
throughout the North than you might realise.
I tend to agree with your literary assessment - but isn't this a case of
revenge for centuries of Brit superiority. Isn't it the ultimate Irish
joke - to turn it on the "oppressor?"
> Anyway, I don't think Dermod's posts are art. To me they are a reflection
> of Dermod's perception of his interaction with the OA and his
understanding
> of the internet discussions - "if 'they' are extreme I'll be extreme"
(fair
> enough).
I have lived amongst extremists all my life and acquired insight into how
they work. They can and will never change. All one can hope for is that
they and their influence be limited in extent and not be permitted to grow
and contaminate others.
My posts are a form of art as are everybody else's if we view art as the
expression of our spatial and cultural views. There is skill and craft and
art involved in formulating posts - perhaps the original and mother of all
arts - the verbal expression of our POV and therefrom a means of persuading
others to perceive, if not, accept it, in whole or part.
> I might say I'd prefer all his posts to be truthful (I know that some
> haven't been) but then again if its sort of symbolic I guess I understand
> what Nima says about finding humour there.
John - when I sign my own name to a post, any factual content therein is, to
the best of my knowledge, true and accurate. I do not knowingly or
willingly disseminate false information. If I say that 2 believers have
left the Faith this week, then 2 believers have left. If I say that Ms
Buchhorn has waited 19 months for a reply - then she has waited 19 months.
I have proof for that latter but to share it would only serve to compromise
the source of the information and that would serve the interests of the AO,
which is neither my duty nor my aim.
There are, of course, "tongue in cheek" posts but I think that anybody with
a shred of intelligence can see that the showing of the ARC ceremonies on
"The Truman Show" is a wind up and not factually based - the whole "Jim
Thingummy" connection. Do note also that I have never stated that 15, 16,
17, 18, 19 months is a definitive or final figure - when that is announced
it shall be with full fanfare, trumpets voluntary and a 42 gun salute
(metaphorically speaking on that one - no more accusations of violence)!
So if you know different please show due cause and render full supporting
evidence! To state that some posts have not been truthful is a most serious
charge which, if proven, would merit my immediate disenrollment. Shall we
have a due process on this?
>Then again the same courtesy
> should be extended to the 'opposite' maybe personified by Rick. I think
to
> continually peck Rick is to refuse to see his humanity, and 'what ho', he
> responds in kind :)
Like anybody else Rickster knows and accepts the risks of coming on this
forum. I'll say this for him - he sure don't know when to lie down. You
have got to admire his perseverance - if naught else - especially as he is
on a hiding to nothing when he opens his mouth (actually, that should read
hits his keyboard).
> But anyway, I think most of us here on trb/arb would like to have
ice-cream
> with you Pat. I'd go so far as I'd want to seek you as a personal friend.
> God/life bless you and yours in an exhaled hug!
I'll go along with that in full measure - I'd even buy him a "pint of
double" if he were a drinkin' man! The First Church of the God-Fearing
Atheist has no prohibition on the modest intake of alcoholic beverages
although it does deprecate over-indulgence therein.
As ever,
Dermod.
John Woodlock
A pretty good response I suppose :(
Okay, a few bits that are easy and tempting to jump on but buggar it takes a
lot to get us southerners out of bed and I guess because of that we give
some leeway to those that make an effort.
John
Michael McKenny
Nope. The impersonal you may confuse you here. What I meant was
that you, the current policies, procedures and practices of the Baha'i
Faith as currently administered, has been expressly rejecting liberal-
democratic practise and instead acting exactly according to the theory
and practise of other anti-democratic regimes: suppressing independent
investigation of truth, the freedom of thought and expression, the free
election of those not in power, etc. Contrary to modern communist
idealogy, but in accord with medieval paradigms of religious
authoritarianism, you (current Baha'i administration) even discriminate
against women, the academic paper outlining scriptural grounds for
the implementation of Baha'i principle on this point having been censored
originally by the patriarchs refusing to give up total power.
It is not anything about you personally that makes these despotic,
anti-democratic policies so reprehensible. They are reprehensible per se,
on the grounds of being among the features of regimes it was justly felt
worth dying to oppose. The Baha'i Faith has martyrs who died at the hands
of exclusivist fundamentalists whose anti-democratic idealogy differed
not in that aspect from what you (current Baha'i administration) ardently
defend.
By all means, aim for the ideal in equality of women and men, etc.
Just don't play with words, discriminate against women and designate that
ideal equality. Ditto for freedom of thought and expression vs imposed
orthodox dogmas along with censorship and declarations of heretics etc.
To True Liberal-Democracy,
Michael
Dermod Ryder
What decadence - a computer set up at the bedside! No wonder you're in the
BIGS club - it likes this sort of member who'll fire a few shots from his
bedside, malign a person's integrity but when challenged to prove his
assertions, dives under the bed linen for cover. Shame on you!
You sure prove one of the differences twixt North and South in Ireland - in
the North we back up what we say and damn the man who doesn't!
As ever,
Dermod.
Michael McKenny
As I said, the sources are what was written by contemporary authors
in non-Celtic countries, the later writings of Celts no longer pagan and
archaeological finds. The archaeological finds need to be distinguished
from modern interpretations, "Inferences", to quote one archaeologist.
A rather humourous underlining of this point was the cartoons showing such
items as parking meters and barbecue bibs with archaeological descriptions
of these as roadside temples and priest's garb, etc.
It is quite valid to indicate that the fact is that in such a text
X is written. Interpretations and assessments (including the one that
Christian monks are unreliable transmitters of traditional knowledge) are
subjective. What the monks recorded of Irish tradition is not incorrect
on the grounds it was written by monks. Similarily, what Ceasar and others
wrote is not necessarily incorrect on the grounds it was written by Caesar,
an enemy of Celts. Yes, one can be alert, as one should ever be, to the
distinction in Caesar and others between what is presented as fact (not
forgetting Caesar was in Gaul and that many others were with him; so
enormous discrepency beween his account and what others saw could be
known) and what in modern parlance is called "spin", interpretation.
As an undergraduate, decades ago, I wrote an essay on the problem
in the Roman historian Tacitus' treatment of a Roman emperor. At that
time, I remarked that careful reading of the text allowed one to note
the distinction between what Tacitus himself recorded as fact and the
manner he described what was going on, his use of adjectives, etc. And
last fall I wrote a lengthy review of Anne Ross's PAGAN CELTIC BRITAIN
noting the great discrepency between what she actually wrote and the
inattentive reader obtained from her words. This review should be
available on the solarguard site.
The point is that in history we can say X wrote Y (often with
various supporting testimony). For example, one post re the New
Chronology movement in Russia was an article about an "eminent"
British historian claiming he'd seen standards similar to those of
King Arthur's in the XUSSR and mentioned Arthur's supposed support of
Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd Century BC. Well, the various sources
placing Arthur and Marcus Aurelius in the 2nd Century BC, If this was
not simply a typo for CE correct in Aurelius's case, may be contrasted
with those placing them in other centuries. The significant point is
that whether or not someone is an "eminent" historian is irrelevant.
The facts are that there are these writings, including Aurelius's own
book, dated to the 2nd Century CE and there are these banners alleged
to be in Kiev, which from the accounts of Arthur would seem to have
dragons on them; I opined that were this deduction correct, then likely
according to similar methods of interpretation one could "prove" Arthur
came from China.
Again, the issue is to distinguish fact (the existence of dragon
banners, if such they are) in Kiev (after all, known for early Viking
influence and the Vikings are known to have used the dragon symbol)
from inference (Arthur must have come from Eastern Europe). Ad hominems,
a very large part, if not exclusively so, of those anti-democrats in
Baha'i, are invalid. One neither accepts, nor rejects, on the grounds
of who said it.
To Baha'i Principles,
M.
"Rick Schaut" (RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
>
> In other words, we have to rely on the testimony of witnesses. Does not the
> credibility of those witness become a legitimate issue when we have to rely
> on their testimony?
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
mult...@aros.net
Being from the Southern States formerly CSA, but thank God no longer!
I must say that in the North when a baby is born the doctor slaps its
behind and it cries, but in the South when a baby is born the doctor
slaps its behind and it looks up and says "who done dat?"
Just a difference in attitude about getting slapped around by those
BIGSer than you. ;-)
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9cukp...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> > "Rick Schaut" (rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom) writes:
> > > There are a number of serious problems within the Baha'i Faith. We
> aren't
> > > going to solve them, however, by turning the Baha'i Faith into the
> mirror
> > > image of modern western democracies. All of us have to begin striving
> for
> > > something better than that, or we're just wasting our time.
>
> Please note the last sentence.
Hey! I got a brilliant idea - let us not turn the Bahai Faith into a mirror
image of modern western democracies. Let us, instead, turn it into a modern
day religion of the liberal ,tolerant type it was supposed to be and let's
consign the theocratic, fundie rubbish to the sewer where it belongs.
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
John Woodlock
Dermod Ryder <Grim_Re...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9d16dg$fce0l$1...@ID-84503.news.dfncis.de...
> What decadence - a computer set up at the bedside! No wonder you're in
the
> BIGS club - it likes this sort of member who'll fire a few shots from his
> bedside, malign a person's integrity but when challenged to prove his
> assertions, dives under the bed linen for cover. Shame on you!
>
Thanks. I think I'm getting the hang of this trb stuff now. It's great
fun.
> You sure prove one of the differences twixt North and South in Ireland -
in
> the North we back up what we say and damn the man who doesn't!
>
ooooohhhhhh. Now I guess that's the truth as you see it.
Actually, now I wish I didn't say:
"I might say I'd prefer all his posts to be truthful (I know that some
haven't been) but then again if its sort of symbolic I guess I understand
what Nima says about finding humour there."
to which you responded:
"John - when I sign my own name to a post, any factual content therein is,
to
the best of my knowledge, true and accurate. I do not knowingly or
willingly disseminate false information. "
If you are willing to let my slur on your integrity slide, fair enough and
thanks.
However, if you think that I'm honour bound to show some evidence then I'll
do the honourable thing and check back on Dermod Ryder related
correspondence for alleged untruthfulness. It is a bit undignified but I
guess I have only myself to blame for the situation.
However, your response has conditions to it that I think would allow you to
pretty much deny anything. How would we allocate a 'judge'? I guess all
that can be done is present the case and leave it at that.
a sever
john
Dermod Ryder
> > You sure prove one of the differences twixt North and South in Ireland -
> in
> > the North we back up what we say and damn the man who doesn't!
> >
> ooooohhhhhh. Now I guess that's the truth as you see it.
Oh! No! John - that's how it is! Try it on with a Northerner if you don't
believe me!
> Actually, now I wish I didn't say:
> "I might say I'd prefer all his posts to be truthful (I know that some
> haven't been) but then again if its sort of symbolic I guess I understand
> what Nima says about finding humour there."
>
> to which you responded:
> "John - when I sign my own name to a post, any factual content therein is,
> to
> the best of my knowledge, true and accurate. I do not knowingly or
> willingly disseminate false information. "
>
> If you are willing to let my slur on your integrity slide, fair enough and
> thanks.
>
> However, if you think that I'm honour bound to show some evidence then
I'll
> do the honourable thing and check back on Dermod Ryder related
> correspondence for alleged untruthfulness. It is a bit undignified but I
> guess I have only myself to blame for the situation.
>
> However, your response has conditions to it that I think would allow you
to
> pretty much deny anything. How would we allocate a 'judge'? I guess all
> that can be done is present the case and leave it at that.
You made the comment in the first place - it's your call as to what follows.
As ever,
Dermod.
Rick Schaut
> >On Wed, 2 May 2001 07:31:17 -0700, "Rick Schaut"
<rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote:
> >Let's assume for the sake of argument that Nima's facts are both accurate
> >and sufficiently complete (yes, that's a strong assumption). What should
> >the National Spiritual Assembly do to correct this Assembly's behavior?
> Well Rick, how about answering your own question? What should be done?
Start by understanding the principles outlined in
http://bahai-library.org/uhj/law.html. Then apply those principles.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
the question in such way as to allow most speakers of the English language
to understand your answer.
So, please try again. Do we, or do we not, have to rely on the testimony of
witnesses? If we do, then doesn't the credibility of those witnesses become
a legitimate issue?
Try including either the word "yes" or the word "no" in your answer.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
"Michael McKenny" <bn...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:9d187q$4qj$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> As I said, the sources are what was written by contemporary authors
> in non-Celtic countries, the later writings of Celts no longer pagan and
> archaeological finds.
[Big snip]
Rick Schaut
> Hey! I got a brilliant idea - let us not turn the Bahai Faith into a
mirror
> image of modern western democracies. Let us, instead, turn it into a
modern
> day religion of the liberal ,tolerant type it was supposed to be and let's
> consign the theocratic, fundie rubbish to the sewer where it belongs.
"Shoot the bastards!" is, as I recall, one of the more concrete expressions
of your tolerance. It would seem that tolerance is a thing to be demanded,
and not a thing to be given.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> Nope. The impersonal you may confuse you here.
Except that I was objecting to the personal references, not the impersnal
references.
As for whether or not the Baha'i Faith currently conducts its affairs in a
manner that's quite different from the way most western democracies conduct
their affairs, I believe we are very much in agreement as to fact.
Where we differ, however, is the extent to which current Baha'i practice
departs from the authoritative texts that define what those practices ought
to be. My hope, vain as it is, is that you will turn to those texts rather
than continue to argue on the basis of uninformed, personal opinion.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
news:9d6d1...@news1.newsguy.com...
You're really going to have learn to read and comprehend properly in future.
"Shoot the bastards?" (note the question mark, which you forgot - do quote
accurately in future) was a suggestion as to the appropriate treatment for a
certain dysfunctional assembly.
Tolerance is for those whose views, belief systems etc differ from mine -
tol;erance cannot be exercised for those whose behaviour exceeds the norm.
Isn't there something about that in the Writings - that one cannot tolerate
wrongdoing?
Sadly - You are the Weakest Link! G'Bye!
>
>
> Regards,
> Rick Schaut
>
>
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
The usual copout! Duh! Go and read and don't ever ask me to suggest
anything!
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> I'm afraid you haven't answered the question, or at least havn't answered
> the question in such way as to allow most speakers of the English language
> to understand your answer.
>
> So, please try again. Do we, or do we not, have to rely on the testimony
of
> witnesses? If we do, then doesn't the credibility of those witnesses
become
> a legitimate issue?
>
> Try including either the word "yes" or the word "no" in your answer.
Of course it's an issue!
You are definitely The Weakest Link! ... G'Bye!
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
What! You expect Michael to argue "on the basis of uninformed, personal
opinion" just as you do!
You are most assuredly The Weakest Link! ... G'Bye
Rick Schaut
> You're really going to have learn to read and comprehend properly in
future.
> "Shoot the bastards?"
What did you say about waffling a while back?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> "Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9d6cj...@news1.newsguy.com...
> Of course it's an issue!
One does have to admire your ability to follow directions. Did you work and
play well with others equally as well?
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> "Rick Schaut" <rssc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
> news:9d6bl...@news1.newsguy.com...
> > Start by understanding the principles outlined in
> > http://bahai-library.org/uhj/law.html. Then apply those principles.
> Go and read and don't ever ask me to suggest
> anything!
I rather presume that Chris is intelligent enough to understand what's in
that letter and figure out what to without me having to state it explicitly.
Of course, if Chris has any additional questions, I'll do my best to give
some kind of answer.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Rick Schaut
> You expect Michael to argue "on the basis of uninformed, personal
> opinion"
You misspelled "observe".
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
Of course - I certainly didn't play with myself, unlike many others I could
name!
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
And you need spectacles lest you continue to make a spectacle of yourself -
I didn't use the word "observe", hence it could not have been misspelt.
>
>
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
Yours or that of somebody else?
Dermod Ryder
"Rick Schaut" <RSSc...@home.NOSPAMcom> wrote in message
Which no doubt will be up to your usual standard of decisive clarity!
You most assuredly are The Weakest Link! ... G'Bye!
Michael McKenny
Sorry you didn't get it. After all, when I write here, I'm assuming
I'm addressing people, most of whom have read Shoghi Effendi and the
English translations of Baha'u'llah. Maybe that's the problem. If you
can't understand what I wrote, you may not be understanding what they
wrote, either. Very interesting. At least your not insisting that only
one fundamentalist interpretation of my words is permitted and those
daring to express here an alternate understanding are to be declared
heretics.
Rick, we understand history on the grounds of what was written down
and according to the archaeological evidence (stuff) we find. The issue
of credibility is largely irrelevant here. You look at facts; Caesar said
X. Some pagans would like to discount what Caesar said because of who he
was. That is not an historian's approach.
Maybe More Later,
M.
Michael McKenny
Could you please post this here.
Thrive,
M.
Ron House
>
> Multiman speculates (if I read him correctly) that if the UHJ were to
> hold world power today, the institution might practice censorship and
> deception on a global scale.
> This prompts me to comment as follows: should not Baha'is take another
> look at The Revelation? Should they carefully evaluate the description
> of the anti-Christ, and ask themselves what role, IF ANY, will the UHJ
> play in the Satanic empire of Mystery Babylon, which is to come? And
> what is the ONLY defense against being seduced to accept the mark of the
> Beast? (Hint: He died on the cross for you and me.)
And if the Catholic church were in power today they might - well, they
might do precisely what they did do when they were last in power.
The behaviour of the followers is not an indictment of God's messengers.
--
Ron House ho...@usq.edu.au
http://www.sci.usq.edu.au/staff/house
mult...@aros.net
I find myself agreeing with Ron House. The logic of the arguemnt
being used by you is presupposed on the the supposition that any
global governemnt is bad or evil.
However, had it not been for the World Government of the Roman Empire
and th World Language of the Greeks, no one might have heard of the
Apostle Paul or his message.
However, if we look not from a literalistic Biblle approach, which you
can if you wish to, I simply do not agree it is literal, but rather
look from jsut a logical set of presuppositions, which is what I was
doing, - then one might logically ask the question I asked, which is
what really is to stop the UHJ on Carmel from going betond its
assigned limits? We know from the Will and Testament that it when
properly constitutted will not. But the reason is that it has a livng
Guardian as its Head and He was to stop them from going beyond their
stations.
Tablet Holy Mariner, "They desired to ascend to that station which was
beyond their staion..."
I am sure Ron would not agree with me on this point, but I think we
both do agree that juding the Prophet by the bad acts of the few or
many would have condemned Moses as a false prophet, look what his
followers did to Christ.
I am not prepared to take that step of logic since the priciple it is
based on is faulty.
On Thu, 10 May 2001 02:55:22 +0000, Ron House <ho...@usq.edu.au>
wrote: