Isn't it true that presently no one can determine the identity of a
Covenant
Breaker until the Universal House of Justice so determines and declares
it?
And isn't it true that until that determination is made, the person is not
a
Covenant Breaker no matter what symptoms of whatever kind of condition is
exhibited, or is thought to be exhibited by that subject individual?
If this is the case, then, I would think, no discussion of the symptoms
before that determination is made can be fruitful except within the
confines
of the consultation amongst the men of the Universal House of justice.
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Susan Maneck" <smaneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai-faith@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Cc: <soc-religion-bahai@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 7:17 AM
Subject: Re: Covenant Breakers
> > What is the difference between a disease and a specific disease?
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> The phrase is "spiritual disease." You'll have to ask yourself what
> the meaning of "specific disease" is since you yourself introduced the
> phrase.
>
> > > Thing is that Abdu'l-Baha never said
> > > anything about nit-picking in connection with the disease of
Covenant
> > > breaking.
> >
> > To use a Susan line, nobody ever said that He did.
>
> Then why interject it?
>
> > I don't care if you agree with me. I care that I agree with Him.
>
> I'm glad to hear you care about this. In that case you will look at
> the text carefully enough to see whether this is indeed so.
>
> > > Amazing how you call the most convoluted interpretations 'straight.'
> > > For everyone else, I think you are being about as clear as mud.
> >
> > Well, I am here because I love to explain the simplicity of it.
>
> The simiplicity of what? You'd have better luck communicating if you
> stated the subjected of your sentence.
>
> > It seems to me you overcomplicate, but for now I only have this
> > conversation to draw on for examples.
>
> I don't think sticking to the text overcomplicates things.
>
> It is not clear the difference
> > between whether denial (of Manifestations) is a disease, or that those
who
> > deny have a disease, which is not the same thing.
>
> Now that is overcomplicating.
>
> > It is a difference of interpretation whether Covenant Breaking is a
disease,
> > or those who become Covenant Breakers have a common spiritual disease
that
> > many of us might share even if we are not Covenant Breakers.
>
> I don't recall that question even being raised, but I would agree that
> there are those who are not officially declared Covenant breakers that
> seem to share the same spiritual disease.
>
> But as far as I know we have not been discussing that issue until just
> now. Unless by that you mean your snide comments suggesting I have a
> spiritual disease because you think I nit-pick too much.
>
> > It is whether the Writings intended us to build a conceptual system
of
> > spiritual diseases based on denial and Covenant Breakers as two such
> > diseases
>
> No one ever said anything about building up "a conceptual system of
> spiritual diseases."
>
> , or if those who present with Covenant Breaking and denial have the
> > same spiritual disease or diseases.
>
> No one ever suggested that either.
> You back me into the corner of
> > "nobody thinks so but you" and when I respond that does not make me
any
less
> > correct you say I am "goodness and light".
>
> Yes, Kent. After you made some very nasty insinuations that I had the
> same spiritual disease as Covenant-breakers.
> ..
> >
> > Here: "Most of the people have become afflicted with the same
spiritual
> > disease."
>
> And the antecendent is the verse Baha'u'llah quotes from the Qu'ran:
>
> "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."
>
> (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 211)
>
> > Could be, but let me say it once more. It seems to me simpler and
truer
to
> > understand the grand issues of life as several varying inspirational
> > conceptualities which make the world a better place.
>
> Kent, do you really see your posts as simple? I don't. See them as
> very convoluted and hard to decipher, mostly because your sentence
> don't make clear what the subject is.
>
> > We are becoming exclusivist, but not me. I am a Baha'i and I accept
many
> > things that you can't. Even if you can't accept those things, you
have
to
> > accept that I do for the sake of the religion we both love.
>
> Frankly I don't see where I am anymore 'exclusivist' than you are. Nor
> do I see there is anything you accept which I don't. Unless you are
> trying to tell us that you accept Covenant breakers and those who seek
> to undermine our Faith. And oh yeah, I'm not very accepting of fuzzy
> logic, but that's a personal thing.
>
> warmest, Susan
>
>
|
