I am sure I could think of more things as
> well, especially if you open up the discussion to more "spiritual
disease
"
> than just Covenant Breaking.
Dear Kent,
I think you are losing track of the thread. We were speaking of what
purposes the Writings have in mind when they refer to Covenant
breakers as spiritually diseased. If we extend that to other people
then we first have to establish when and where the Writings have
applied that term to others. I can think of one case where the term is
used in references to others:
"After the denials and denunciations which they uttered, and unto
which We have referred, they protested saying: "No independent
Prophet, according to our Scriptures, should arise after Moses and
Jesus to abolish the Law of divine Revelation. Nay, he that is to be
made manifest must needs fulfil the Law." Thereupon this verse,
indicative of all the divine themes, and testifying to the truth that
the flow of the grace of the All-Merciful can never cease, was
revealed: "And Joseph came to you aforetime with clear tokens, but ye
ceased not to doubt of the message with which He came to you, until,
when He died, ye said, 'God will by no means raise up a Messenger
after Him.' Thus God misleadeth him who is the transgressor the
doubter."[1] Therefore, understand from this verse and know of a
certainty that the people in every age, clinging to a verse of the
Book, have uttered such vain and absurd sayings, contending that no
Prophet should again be made manifest to the world. Even as the
Christian divines who, holding fast to the verse of the Gospel to
which We have already referred, have sought to explain that the law of
the Gospel shall at no time be annulled, and that no independent
Prophet shall again be made manifest, unless He confirmeth the law of
the Gospel. Most of the people have become afflicted with the same
spiritual disease."
(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 211)
So for Baha'u'llah denying there will be future Manifestations is a
spiritual disease. Obviously the purpose here is not to avoid the
person, but to avoid the attitude. But that is not the way the phrase
is used in reference to Covenant breakers.
>
> >The very term ''spiritual disease' it automatically precludes it being
> >literal.
>
> How so? Is "spiritual" always an indication of metaphor? Is there no
su
ch
> thing as literal spirit?
Sure there is such a thing as literal spirit, because spirit is
literally non-physical. But the literal meaning of disease is a
physical ailment. All other forms of disease are metaphorical.
> Please especially note your phrasing "fully sup****ted by the Writings".
> That is what I mean. According to what you say here, "the purpose" of
> calling Covenant Breaking "contagious" is so we will avoid Covenant
> Breakers. Fully sup****ted by the Writings, you say.
Uh yeah. Here's the sup****t.
"...Covenant Breaking is truly a Spiritual disease, and the whole
view-point and attitude of a Covenant Breaker is so poisonous that the
Master likened it to leprosy, and warned the friends to breathe the
same air was dangerous.
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 183)
"....Thou hast asked some questions; that why the blessed and
spiritual souls, who are firm and steadfast, shun the company of
degenerate persons. This is because, that just as the bodily diseases
like consumption and cancer are contagious, likewise the spiritual
diseases are also infectious. If a consumptive should associate with a
thousand safe and healthy persons, the safety and health of these
thousand persons would not affect the consumptive and would not cure
him of his consumptions. But when this consumptive associates with
those thousand souls, in a short time the disease of consumption will
infect a number of those healthy persons. This is a clear and
self-evident question."
('Abdu'l-Bah=E1: Tablet to an individual believer, October 1921: Star of
the West, Vol. XII, No. 14, p. 233) 184
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 183)
>
> I say we should avoid them because they are grouchy, argumentative,
Well, I gave you the scriptural sup****t for my assertion. Now you will
show us the passages which tell us to avoid them because they are
grouchy and argumentative. ;-}
warmest, Susan
|
