Bahai Forums

Go Back   Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Administration

Baha'i Administration Baha'i administrative order


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2011, 09:34 PM   #81
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Sounds like a plan to me!
 
Join Baha'i Forums


Welcome to Baha'i Forums, an open Baha'i Faith community! We welcome everyone and the community is free to join so register today and become part of the Baha'i Forums family!


Old 01-19-2011, 09:53 PM   #82
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Uh Sboyce, the aposltes did write the gospels. If they didn't why would bahai even trust them? Do you seriously contest the authenticity? I would like to know.

Lunitik I have said that Jesus gave up his divine perogative, not that he was ever lesser than God. BUt while on earth he was subject to the Father and willingly obeyed him. So Verses emphasising his humanity of humbled state do not refute my doctrine nor that of the churfch. Now I think the difference between me and you Lunatik, is that i consider the church fathers doing God's will since the apostles and remaining firm to that practice.

Now Lord, You cannot simply say that the Holy spirit was confined only to the apostles. For the next generation who the apostles taught affirms an apostolic authority given to them and Christ promises to protect his church. And giving the power to bind and loose, i would assume means they have the power to transfer that authority to those they deem fit.
Not entirely accurate, but overall, I agree, this is where we differ.

In the Bible, Jesus states God knows more than him, he also states he cannot imagine being equal to God. These statements are in todays Bible, yet you ignore them rather than accept there are flaws in your dogma.

Perhaps it wasn't this thread, but I see nothing still about refuting prophecies that Baha'is assert apply to Baha'u'llah.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:56 PM   #83
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
As for the original thread topic, it was answered in the first post... I see nothing that can be added to that response.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 09:58 PM   #84
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
No lunatik, in the bible Christ is equal to God. But I dont feel the need to repeat myself on that subject. There is no flaw.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:06 PM   #85
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by whine of astonsihment View Post
I'm sure ralph who started this thread about 'women and the Universal House of Justice' is really appreciating the way orthodox is continually and repeatedly allowed to hijack this and any other threads he chooses to his "same-old same-old" handful of faves like 'authenticity via historicity' and visa versa, the trinity, the resurrection, general insults of Baha'u'llah and the faith, etc. over and over again. I'm sure ralph can hardly wait to participate again....
While I suppose it's just my own personal deficiency in the virtue of 'long suffering patience' that is to blame for this feeling more like the drip ... drip ... drip of Chinese water torture and impending death by boredom, I can't help but speak up now and again to ask "WHY?"
As I woman I have learned the hard way that failure to set proper 'boundaries' and reinforce their observance, whether it's the terms of reference of a discussion, or a relationship, social, personal or professional, usually results in a 'violation' of one kind or another.
So what is the problem here folks and can we expect a resolution before the advent of the next Manifestation of God?
Is there a magic # of orthodox posts after which we can say 'enough already' without being accused of (God forbid!) "intolerance" and simply quote Abdul-Baha's "You try your way and I'll try mine."?
Or is their some weird kind of 'codependent need to debate' that I somehow fail to appreciate - being that I'm only a woman of course!
Just a thought....
I have to agree

You state your case and move on - Once you argue you are both wrong - Cheers Tony
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:06 PM   #86
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
In the bible Jesus is the servant the Son and the messenger.
God is the father the Master and "he who sent him".

Does that sound like equality?

"Verily, verily, I say unto you: The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him." ( John 13: 16 ) ...

Its just your Dogma that made them equal. See the bible says they are not and your dogma says they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
No lunatik, in the bible Christ is equal to God. But I dont feel the need to repeat myself on that subject. There is no flaw.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:08 PM   #87
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 4,107
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins View Post
So do we just ignore Orthodox then in the interest of keeping the thread relevent?
Yes is the short answer - Reply once and let it go

Start another thread or add to another that already hashes these topics over & over & over etc
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:11 PM   #88
Dedicated to Orthodoxy
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: New Zealand
Posts: 1,318
Lord in the bible Christ is described in a humbled state. Specific examples, John 17:5 and it is also explained by Paul. I need not repeat myself.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:12 PM   #89
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
You only need to be humbled when there is something to be humbled towards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orthodox View Post
Lord in the bible Christ is described in a humbled state. Specific examples, John 17:5 and it is also explained by Paul. I need not repeat myself.
 
Old 01-19-2011, 10:15 PM   #90
Senior Member
 
LordOfGoblins's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
From: Australia
Posts: 2,056
Bahais do not beleive God is humble to his creation we are humble to him...
 
Old 01-20-2011, 02:37 AM   #91
Junior Member
 
dancho's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: USA
Posts: 10
Before this debate is closed, it might be interesting to observe the underlying dispute in terms of philosophy. Orthodox is using Rationalism and history to make his case. This is powerful thing--a great sledgehammer, and the bedrock of civilization. He is convinced (no doubt) that with this weapon he can defeat any Baha'i dragon that may appear.

Unfortunately (for him) he's debating with Pragmatists. Pragmatism is not Rationalism--as a matter of fact, it isn't even a formal "philosophy." It's very new (from the 19th century) and not explained really well, yet. The best work in this area is by the followers of Robert Pirsig, who didn't even know he was a Pragmatist! But the work goes on, non-the-less.

It's not possible to simply refute Pragmatic thought by just saying "it doesn't make sense" since the highest value to a Pragmatist is undefined, and might best be called "value itself." Logic is superseded. "Truth" is superseded. And not one word of it will penetrate into the minds of Rationalists unless they are willing to free their minds and open up to the possibility that they have neglected the true foundation of reality--Quality (to Pirsig)--or "God" if you prefer. History and reason do not add up to God. On the other hand, Pragmatism may very well take us a close to a true understanding of God as we are likely to get, since it depends upon the mind of the individual believer to believe, and the heart of the individual believer to love.

This debate (and any other like it) will go on forever because the two sides can't see each other. I know, I've been debating hard-core Rationalists for years since I fell away from another church-- The Libertarian Party. The standard thing, after I point out where the fundamental differences lie, is for the Rationalist to just ignore my argument, re-state that A is A, and declare that I'm all wrong because he was never a Rationalist.

Last edited by dancho; 01-20-2011 at 02:55 AM.
 
Old 01-20-2011, 02:45 AM   #92
Senior Member
 
Livindesert's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2010
From: Delmarva
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancho View Post
Before this debate is closed, it might be interesting to observe the underlying dispute in terms of philosophy. Orthodox is using Rationalism and history to make his case. This is powerful thing--a great sledgehammer, and the bedrock of civilization. He is convinced (no doubt) that with this weapon he can defeat any Baha'i dragon that may appear.

Unfortunately (for him) he's debating with Pragmatists. Pragmatism is not Rationalism--as a matter of fact, it isn't even a formal "philosophy." It's very new (from the 19th century) and not explained really well, yet. The best work in this area is by the followers of Robert Pirsig, who didn't even know he was a Pragmatist! But the work goes on, non-the-less.

It's not possible to simply refute Pragmatic thought by just saying "it doesn't make sense" since the highest value to a Pragmatist is undefined, and might best be called "value itself." Logic is superseded. "Truth" is superseded. And not one word of it will penetrate into the mind of a Rationalist unless they are willing to free their minds and open up to the possibility that they have neglected the true foundation of reality--Quality (to Pirsig)--or "God" if you prefer. History and reason do not add up to God. On the other hand, Pragmatism may very well take us a close to a true understanding of God as we are likely to get, since it depends upon the mind of the individual believer to believe, and the heart of the individual believer to love.

This debate (and any other like it) will go on forever because the two sides can't see each other. I know, I've been debating hard-core Rationalists for years since I fell away from another church-- The Libertarian Party. The standard thing, after I point out where the fundamental differences lie, is for the Rationalist to just ignore my argument, re-state that A is A, and declare that I'm all wrong because he was never a Rationalist.
Wow...great post
 
Old 01-20-2011, 03:09 AM   #93
Senior Member
 
whine of astonsihment's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Canada
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancho View Post
Before this debate is closed
not to worry dancho we have enough intellectual meat-beaters on here to keep it going for all eternity!
That said, it only makes me appreciate your post even more...
 
Old 01-20-2011, 07:21 AM   #94
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by arthra View Post
Yeshua,

Well it's interesting you raise this issue.. now I would rather not bring it up because this is after all a Baha'i Forum not a Catholic forum..as far as I can tell... but since you brought it up I did recall a case in my local newspaper about a heresy trial and it was in 2005...

A Roman Catholic diocese in Southern California has put a former priest on trial on charges of heresy. The San Bernardino Diocese says Father Ned Reidy is leading Catholics astray with his breakaway parish near Palm Springs. While a secret diocese tribunal deliberates on a verdict,


Catholic Church Tries Ex-Priest for Heresy : NPR

From the same site:

Heresy trials can occur at the Vatican or in a diocesan court. The last time the Vatican itself formally excommunicated a priest for heretical views was in 1997. The Sri Lankan priest involved -- whose split with the church had involved his views on original sin -- later reconciled with the Vatican.
Ah yes but it is different in cases concerning Priests, Bishops and Cardinals I was referring to ordinary laity. Since Priests are the Apostolic Successors (In the Catholic view) and are the pastors and teachers of the faith, it is crucial that they are fully Orthodox in their views. It would make no sense, for example, to have a Catholic Priest who believes that there are Two Gods, as some of the Gnostics believed. That would be non-sensical and detrimental to the survival of the religion.
 
Old 01-21-2011, 03:40 AM   #95
Senior Member
 
Joined: Oct 2010
From: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancho View Post
Before this debate is closed, it might be interesting to observe the underlying dispute in terms of philosophy. Orthodox is using Rationalism and history to make his case. This is powerful thing--a great sledgehammer, and the bedrock of civilization. He is convinced (no doubt) that with this weapon he can defeat any Baha'i dragon that may appear.

Unfortunately (for him) he's debating with Pragmatists. Pragmatism is not Rationalism--as a matter of fact, it isn't even a formal "philosophy." It's very new (from the 19th century) and not explained really well, yet. The best work in this area is by the followers of Robert Pirsig, who didn't even know he was a Pragmatist! But the work goes on, non-the-less.

It's not possible to simply refute Pragmatic thought by just saying "it doesn't make sense" since the highest value to a Pragmatist is undefined, and might best be called "value itself." Logic is superseded. "Truth" is superseded. And not one word of it will penetrate into the minds of Rationalists unless they are willing to free their minds and open up to the possibility that they have neglected the true foundation of reality--Quality (to Pirsig)--or "God" if you prefer. History and reason do not add up to God. On the other hand, Pragmatism may very well take us a close to a true understanding of God as we are likely to get, since it depends upon the mind of the individual believer to believe, and the heart of the individual believer to love.

This debate (and any other like it) will go on forever because the two sides can't see each other. I know, I've been debating hard-core Rationalists for years since I fell away from another church-- The Libertarian Party. The standard thing, after I point out where the fundamental differences lie, is for the Rationalist to just ignore my argument, re-state that A is A, and declare that I'm all wrong because he was never a Rationalist.
Took me a while to grasp a decent understanding of the differences, at first I was a little offended because I consider myself somewhat of a rational and logical thinker.

I have since gained a better understanding and love this post!
 
Old 01-25-2011, 10:35 PM   #96
Tony Bristow-Stagg
 
tonyfish58's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Normanton Far North Queensland
Posts: 4,107
Good Post Dancho

It helps when we educate ourselves :-)

Cheers Tony
 
Reply

  Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Forums > Baha'i Administration

Tags
house, justice, universal, women



Thread Tools
Display Modes



Facebook @bahaiforums RSS


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2006 - 2018 Bahai Forums. All rights reserved.