> I didn't say that you said she was a Covenant Breaker. I said you were t
oo
> quick to bring it up.
Kent,
The implications was that I was too quick to bring it up because I
didn't know if she was a Covenant breaker or not. In fact, I know that
she has *not* been declared a Covenant breaker. That is not the reason
I raised the question. It was because that was the logical place your
argument leads to.
>
> We don't even know if it is a "she".
The only reason we wouldn't know that is because we can't believe
anything this person says. In both cases she used a woman's name.
That "she" denies being the Tahirih that you
> and I have conversed with in the past, and calls "herself" by the name
of
> someone who would not independently admit to having wrote it.
The post where she does so she uses the SN of another female
ex-Baha'i. As I pointed out, whichever of these two women she may be
she is an ex-Baha'i who has explicitly repudiated Baha'u'llah. Yet she
addressing us with a Baha'i Greeting and trying to tell us what
Abdu'l-Baha wants us to do.
In any case, there is no small amount of deception going on here.
> > I asked if you would apply
> > the same principle to reading Covenant breaking material.
>
> I assume you mean the principle of treating the message fairly.
That was your wording not, mine. I don't think itis unfair to point
out that the person who is trying to speak for Abdu'l-Baha is someone
with a history of antagonism towards the Faith. I gave her the
op****tunity to tell us she had changed her mind about that. Notice she
did not.
> > As a scholar I sometimes feel I need acquaint myself with
> > their arguments.
>
> And what if Tom and I were to inform you that we think it will hurt your
> soul to do so. Would you still do it?
>
> Or would you do it, but advise others against it? On what grounds?
On the grounds of the guidance of the Universal House of Justice:
To read the writings of Covenant-breakers is not forbidden to the
believers and does not constitute in itself an act of
Covenant-breaking. Indeed, some of the Bah=E1'=EDs have the unpleasant
duty to read such literature as part of their responsibilities for
protecting the Cause of Bah=E1'u'll=E1h. However, the friends are warned
in the strongest terms against reading such literature because
Covenant-breaking is a spiritual poison and the calumnies and
distortions of the truth which the Covenant-breakers give out are such
that they can undermine the faith of the believer and plant the seeds
of doubt unless he is fore-armed with an unshakable belief in
Bah=E1'u'll=E1h and His Covenant and a knowledge of the true facts.
Letter from the Universal House of Justice, dated October 29, 1974
(Compilations, NSA USA - Developing Distinctive Baha'i Communities)
> Apparently you are quite quick to cry wolf, as well.
When someone pretends to be a 'sheep' when they are clearly not one,
crying 'wolf' strikes me as the appropriate response.
warmest, Susan
|
