| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:31 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
 |
|
| Quote: | I look at it like this. Someone comes to your village and forewarns you th
at
your irrigation techniques will eventually turn your land to waste and
advises you on how to change. When you ask this person to substantiate
his claim, he says "trust me", or "because God said so"; and if you
|
Not so, Baha'is believe proof is in the word. The truths are self-
evident. For example, at a time when the status of women in Iran was
little better than cattle, Baha'u'llah proclaims the equality of men
and women.
| Quote: | don't take his word for it, declares you an enemy of God - if not
explicitly, then implicitly in the wording of address such as to make a sh
ow
of great distrust in you, when it is you asking the questions and he who c
laims to
have all the answers.
|
Really, this is why Baha'u'llah adovcated the independent
investigation of truth. That we should do away with our ministers and
investigate God's revelation for ourselves?
The first teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the investigation of reality. Man
must seek the reality himself, forsaking imitations and adherence to
mere hereditary forms.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 238)
| Quote: | For example, there is not a single proscription of alcohol in
any culture or religion that specifically prescribes replacements for
digestives such as amaros or alternative anti-oxidant sources such as red
wine. This by itself makes the proscription unethical in the first place
because not only is the proscription negligent and causes measurable harm,
but the proscription also creates a restriction which is not paid for by i
ts
replacement with a less harmful liberty that wasn't previously available.
This is especially true in specific types of alcohol consumption (eg. high
ly
moderate & especially with regard to use in cooking) that does nothing to
restrict the consumer's ability to think - especially where as much has be
en
found to be beneficial to both body and mind (eg. antioxidants improve
circulation which in turn improves intellect in addition to physical
fitness).
|
If through all of that you are advocating that alcohol consumption is
somehow beneficial here are a few points to consider:
1. The Baha'i Faith leaves provisions by which a physician may
prescribe daily red wine or anything else should it be deemed to
benefit our health. But before you go getting soused up consider that
a less publicized study implicates grape juice as being equally
healthy without the side effect of damaging the liver.
From the Wikki on grapes:
"Like wine, grape juice also contains antioxidants such as flavonoids,
providing some health benefits. These anti-oxidants have been
implicated in many epidemiological studies with a reduction in
coronary heart disease and cancer. .....Typically, purple grape juice
is made from concord grapes.
A recent study published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry found that purple grape juice was among the highest in
antioxidants among the juices tested. Also high in antioxidant
compounds were cloudy apple juice, cranberry juice, and pomegranate
juice. [1] All fruit juices analysed in this study were purchased from
a local supermarket. The choice of juices was based on the top selling
flavours in the 2005 UK sales data. The study was funded by the USA
National Grape Co-op of which Welch's is a member."
2. In regards to alcohol in general, 15,000+ people die per year in
the US in alcohol related accidents. What about alcohol related,
rape, child abuse, and molestation, alcohol induced liver cirrhrosis.
Do you have a number? Looking at the big picture if we were to tally
up the benefit to cost ratio of alcohol we'd find it to be up there
with the plagues of the past. Yeah, the plague may indeed cure you of
your headache.
"An estimated 254,000 persons were injured in crashes where police
reported that alcohol was present — an average of one person injured
approximately every 2 minutes.
There were 16,885 alcohol-related fatalities in 2005 – 39 percent of
the total traffic fatalities for the year.
In 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting
Program
estimated that over 1.4 million drivers were arrested for driving
under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This is an arrest rate of
1 for every 139 licensed
drivers in the United States. (2005 data not yet available.)
In 2005, 21 percent of the children age 14 and younger who were killed
in motor
vehicle crashes were killed in alcohol-related crashes."
taken from: http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2005.html
This site just keeps on about the subject, but I think it makes a good
point at 200,000 persons injured per year visiting an ER. How much
does a single ER visit cost??
"Brief #111 (January 2006) shows average expenses for a visit to the
Emergency Room were $560 in 2003. For people ages 45 to 64, the cost
was substantially higher on average ($832). If a surgical procedure
was performed during the visit, the average payment was $904. Overall
range was $42 (10th percentile) to $1246 (90th percentile). "
At a minimum of 500$. Let's see 500$ x 200,000 = 100,000,000$ million
per year as a very conservative estimate. Forget the deaths, who do
you think foots the cost? Of course cost really isn't an issue when
it's you or your child that makes up a part of that statistic. To put
the death rate in perspective, we invest millions into curing HIV.
"Deaths from HIV/AIDS: 15,245 deaths in 2000 (NIAID); 14,802 deaths
reported in USA 1999 (NVSR Sep 2001) "
I haven't even touched liver disease, but I don't need to. That's your
cost/benefit analysis of alcohol for you. I can't imagine being aware
of these statistics and still believing that somehow the health
benefits of alcohol outweigh its' risks. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | Either you missed my point completely, you are insulting me directly,
or both. My issue is whoever does God's work (basic math)is doing
God's work, no matter what religion they belong to or what name they
|
Kent, I am appreciating your point but I think you've missed mine.
I'll take your statement above to mean that you do believe education
is necessary.
My point: People need to be educated as Baha'is, because while it is
true that some spiritually enlightened folks will figure it out on
their own, there is no organized group out there teaching the total
packaged principles of the Baha'i Faith other than the Baha'i Faith
itself.
For the very same reason that I send my child to school to learn
math, our society needs to learn the Baha'i Faith. Without this
education, our society will needlessly suffer. I know my child has the
ability to figure math out on his own, but I also know his life will
be alot simpler and easier and he will more readily propser if I teach
it to him.
You are lost in the arguement about whether or not individuals can be
Baha'i without even knowing about the Faith, and my arguement is about
the societies need for the Baha'i Faith.
Not every student you teach will get an A+ in math and not every
Baha'i you teach will do Gods' work. But it does little to change the
fact in either case, that both need to be taught. Failure to do so is
going to result in bad times for everyone. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidazal66@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JvSdnRxOo4ViZEXVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | Tim,
All discussions of Spirit and Divinity, God and Godhead, without
recourse to some form of emanationism are tout court nonsense and more
of the same. Abbas Effendi's discussion of "pantheism" is totally
unconvincing and philosophically flawed. It is also unconvincing in
the original Persian because obviously the man had not really digested
the doctrine of the Unity of Being (wahdat al-wujud) in all its
various implications, especially as it was dealt and modified by
Shi'ites such as Mulla Sadra and finally expanded as into something
else by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai. However, note that the doctrine of the
Unity of Being does not entail that everything is monochromatically
divine. Grades and hierarchies inform the construct of all levels of
the Kosmos. The Neoplatonism, the Hermetic tradition and Kabbalah are
places to look into such questions with a bit more rigor.
In any case, without getting into a long winded theological
discussion, I invite you to look into the writings of Rene Guenon,
especially his *The Multiple States of Being*:
http://www.fonsvitae.com/rene-guenon-multiple.html
I think for your type of probing metaphysical inquiry, Guenon's pure
metaphysical writings can serve as a valuable springboard to
reconsideration of the more symbolic and philosophically rigorous
aspects of the great question amongst the Traditions themselves. How
Guenon unpacks the issue I think you will find quite interesting. His
*Symbolism of the Cross*, *Metaphysical Principles of Infinitesimal
Calculas*, *The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times* would
also interest you considerably. Look at *Multiple States of Being* and
you will never need the garbled and befuddled pseudo-arguments of
Abbas Effendi ever again.
W
|
Thank you.
Is multiple states of being similar to the ideas of Eckhart Tolle? He
suggests that we are neither mind nor thought, heart nor emotion, body nor
sensation; but a sum of these and more. How often do we say "I feel" instead
of "my heart feels" or how often do we say, "I think" instead of "my mind
thinks" when being is so much more than thought or feeling?
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Sock-Puppet'ullah
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On Sep 25, 1:56 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
<eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
| Quote: | "Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JvSdnRxOo4ViZEXVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com...
Tim,
All discussions of Spirit and Divinity, God and Godhead, without
recourse to some form of emanationism are tout court nonsense and more
of the same. Abbas Effendi's discussion of "pantheism" is totally
unconvincing and philosophically flawed. It is also unconvincing in
the original Persian because obviously the man had not really digested
the doctrine of the Unity of Being (wahdat al-wujud) in all its
various implications, especially as it was dealt and modified by
Shi'ites such as Mulla Sadra and finally expanded as into something
else by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai. However, note that the doctrine of the
Unity of Being does not entail that everything is monochromatically
divine. Grades and hierarchies inform the construct of all levels of
the Kosmos. The Neoplatonism, the Hermetic tradition and Kabbalah are
places to look into such questions with a bit more rigor.
In any case, without getting into a long winded theological
discussion, I invite you to look into the writings of Rene Guenon,
especially his *The Multiple States of Being*:
http://www.fonsvitae.com/rene-guenon-multiple.html
I think for your type of probing metaphysical inquiry, Guenon's pure
metaphysical writings can serve as a valuable springboard to
reconsideration of the more symbolic and philosophically rigorous
aspects of the great question amongst the Traditions themselves. How
Guenon unpacks the issue I think you will find quite interesting. His
*Symbolism of the Cross*, *Metaphysical Principles of Infinitesimal
Calculas*, *The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times* would
also interest you considerably. Look at *Multiple States of Being* and
you will never need the garbled and befuddled pseudo-arguments of
Abbas Effendi ever again.
W
Thank you.
Is multiple states of being similar to the ideas of Eckhart Tolle?
|
You are a serious man, with a serious mind. Eckhart Tolle is
popularized, sensationalized platitudinal drivel. Guenon died in 1951,
long before Tolle was 'discovered'. Guenon's MULTIPLE STATES OF BEING
is a work of pure traditional Metaphysics dealing with serious
subjects. About Shaykh Abd'ul-Wahid Yahya Rene Guenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Gu%C3%A9non
| Quote: | He
suggests that we are neither mind nor thought, heart nor emotion, body nor
sensation; but a sum of these and more.
|
This is the Traditional Hindu teaching regarding the nature of the
'Atman', the traditional Platonic-Hermetic teachings of the World
Soul, and the traditional Quranic Islamic teaching regarding the One
Soul.
W |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Douglas McAdam
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Dear friend-
I hope you don't mind me asking but what does "Sock-Puppet'allah" mean
and what is its significance?
Just curious,
doug
On Sep 25, 2008, at 12:05 AM, Sock-Puppet'ullah wrote:
| Quote: | On Sep 25, 1:56 am, "Number Eleven - GPEMC!"
eleven_is_the_num...@timothycasey.info> wrote:
"Sock-Puppet'ullah" <wahidaza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JvSdnRxOo4ViZEXVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@giganews.com...
Tim,
All discussions of Spirit and Divinity, God and Godhead, without
recourse to some form of emanationism are tout court nonsense and
more
of the same. Abbas Effendi's discussion of "pantheism" is totally
unconvincing and philosophically flawed. It is also unconvincing in
the original Persian because obviously the man had not really
digested
the doctrine of the Unity of Being (wahdat al-wujud) in all its
various implications, especially as it was dealt and modified by
Shi'ites such as Mulla Sadra and finally expanded as into something
else by Shaykh Ahmad al-Ahsai. However, note that the doctrine of
the
Unity of Being does not entail that everything is monochromatically
divine. Grades and hierarchies inform the construct of all levels of
the Kosmos. The Neoplatonism, the Hermetic tradition and Kabbalah
are
places to look into such questions with a bit more rigor.
In any case, without getting into a long winded theological
discussion, I invite you to look into the writings of Rene Guenon,
especially his *The Multiple States of Being*:
http://www.fonsvitae.com/rene-guenon-multiple.html
I think for your type of probing metaphysical inquiry, Guenon's pure
metaphysical writings can serve as a valuable springboard to
reconsideration of the more symbolic and philosophically rigorous
aspects of the great question amongst the Traditions themselves. How
Guenon unpacks the issue I think you will find quite interesting.
His
*Symbolism of the Cross*, *Metaphysical Principles of Infinitesimal
Calculas*, *The Reign of Quantity and the Sign of the Times* would
also interest you considerably. Look at *Multiple States of Being*
and
you will never need the garbled and befuddled pseudo-arguments of
Abbas Effendi ever again.
W
Thank you.
Is multiple states of being similar to the ideas of Eckhart Tolle?
You are a serious man, with a serious mind. Eckhart Tolle is
popularized, sensationalized platitudinal drivel. Guenon died in 1951,
long before Tolle was 'discovered'. Guenon's MULTIPLE STATES OF BEING
is a work of pure traditional Metaphysics dealing with serious
subjects. About Shaykh Abd'ul-Wahid Yahya Rene Guenon:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Gu%C3%A9non
He
suggests that we are neither mind nor thought, heart nor emotion,
body nor
sensation; but a sum of these and more.
This is the Traditional Hindu teaching regarding the nature of the
'Atman', the traditional Platonic-Hermetic teachings of the World
Soul, and the traditional Quranic Islamic teaching regarding the One
Soul.
W
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
<mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HvOdnXMXPugzA0fVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
[SNIP]
| Quote: | For example, there is not a single proscription of alcohol in
any culture or religion that specifically prescribes replacements for
digestives such as amaros or alternative anti-oxidant sources such as red
wine. This by itself makes the proscription unethical in the first place
because not only is the proscription negligent and causes measurable harm,
but the proscription also creates a restriction which is not paid for by i
ts
replacement with a less harmful liberty that wasn't previously available.
This is especially true in specific types of alcohol consumption (eg. high
ly
moderate & especially with regard to use in cooking) that does nothing to
restrict the consumer's ability to think - especially where as much has be
en
found to be beneficial to both body and mind (eg. antioxidants improve
circulation which in turn improves intellect in addition to physical
fitness).
If through all of that you are advocating that alcohol consumption is
somehow beneficial here are a few points to consider:
1. The Baha'i Faith leaves provisions by which a physician may
prescribe daily red wine or anything else should it be deemed to
benefit our health.
|
Either the translation is wrong or the Baha'u'llah is making an impossibly
tall order here. If you have a serious problem, your doctor or GP will refer
you to a specialist. If after many years of going in circles with monthly
specialist consultation, you still get nowhere, one of them may refer you to
a physician. A Physician is like a specialist but with multiple specialties;
an advantage when dealing with diseases that are routinely misdiagnosed and
referred to the wrong specialist. Most people never meet a physician in
their entire lifetime as they often wind up in teaching, and extremely rare
diseases usually kill you long before they are likely to be diagnosed.
| Quote: | But before you go getting soused up consider that
a less publicized study implicates grape juice as being equally
healthy without the side effect of damaging the liver.
From the Wikki on grapes:
"Like wine, grape juice also contains antioxidants such as flavonoids,
providing some health benefits. These anti-oxidants have been
implicated in many epidemiological studies with a reduction in
coronary heart disease and cancer. .....Typically, purple grape juice
is made from concord grapes.
A recent study published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food
Chemistry found that purple grape juice was among the highest in
antioxidants among the juices tested. Also high in antioxidant
compounds were cloudy apple juice, cranberry juice, and pomegranate
juice. [1] All fruit juices analysed in this study were purchased from
a local supermarket. The choice of juices was based on the top selling
flavours in the 2005 UK sales data. The study was funded by the USA
National Grape Co-op of which Welch's is a member."
|
Grapes and grape juice can upset the stomach in cases whereas a red wine in
moderation with the food does not; and a little heartburn is a very serious
thing. GPs in Australia prescribe heavily subsidised medication because of a
link between oesophagitis and GI cancer (which is the number 1 cancer in
Australia)
| Quote: | 2. In regards to alcohol in general, 15,000+ people die per year in
the US in alcohol related accidents. What about alcohol related,
rape, child abuse, and molestation, alcohol induced liver cirrhosis.
Do you have a number? Looking at the big picture if we were to tally
up the benefit to cost ratio of alcohol we'd find it to be up there
with the plagues of the past. Yeah, the plague may indeed cure you of
your headache.
taken from: http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics-2005.html
|
These statistics only apply to excessive alcohol consumption or alcohol
abuse. They apply in no way to the moderate and thoughtful consumption that
I endorse. On this point I may add that your microwave oven doesn't come
with a fixed notice for you not to use it to dry your baby because
presumably, most normal people can figure this out for themselves. Most
normal people don't drink excessively because we all know just how harmful
ignoring the unwritten instructions can be.
Furthermore, blaming the substance and not the choice to abuse it is part of
the problem. I can choose to have half a glass of red wine with my meal if
circumstances suit, and there is no harm is done. If, however, I go on a red
grape diet, eating only red grapes, you can imagine the potential harm can
you not? Does this mean we should ban red grapes? Everything in excess is a
poison - even water has, in rare circumstances, been ingested to excess.
Hitler had 6 million Jews, 5 million people from other unprotected
minorities, and a further 60 million people killed on the Eastern Front.
Then we have the ethnic cleansing associated with the Androgenisation of God
(including the massacre of entire civilisations across the Middle East,
throughout Anatolia, and even throughout Greece and all the way to Minoa),
the Catholic Inquisition & the Protestant Witch-hunts. More recent depravity
comes from the likes of Henry VIII, Cromwell, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol
Pot, Hussein, Milosevic, and then we have the various African atrocities of
recent decades. By the same logic, we would ban all forms of leadership and
administration because these things have killed more people than anything
else, and eventually if we ban food consumption because of the risk of death
by morbid obesity, we all finally starve to death and only then will there
be peace on earth for the very first time in 10,000 years. While we are at
it, why don't we ban God? The call to "God's Side" has been a rallying cry
for mass participation in every atrocity our "great leaders" have conspired
to perpetrate through their minions. We don't ban God is for the same reason
no-one should ban alcohol. It's a question of consumption or abuse which
constitutes a choice on the part of the individual that is not dictated by
the nature of the substance.
| Quote: | "Deaths from HIV/AIDS: 15,245 deaths in 2000 (NIAID); 14,802 deaths
reported in USA 1999 (NVSR Sep 2001) "
|
What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not because the rich and
famous can afford the vaccine when they travel. Yet some of the rich are
rich only because the malaria vaccine is too expensive for the 2.7 million
people killed by malaria every year (Bremen et. al. 2001). Which should we
ban? Mosquitoes, malaria, or wealth?
What about tobacco? In Australia, one in a thousand people die from tobacco
caused illnesses - that was 19,000 every year in 1998. When we compare
alcohol at 2831, motor vehicle accidents at 1731, illegal drug use at 863,
and murders at 203 in 1998 (http://quitnow.info.au), we must ask how
Baha'u'llah could err so grievously as to abrogate the Bab's ban of a
substance that even when used properly and in moderation causes several
times the mortality of alcohol abuse? Don't tell me! "Alcohol consumeth the
mind"? Once again, moderate consumption of red wine does the opposite by
improving circulation. The choice to overstep the bounds of moderation is a
choice and is not dictated by any attribute of alcohol - so when someone
says, alcohol "causeth man to commit acts of absurdity" that person denies
the choice to overstep moderation in the first place, not to mention the
fact that such "absurdity" had to be in the heart of the man in the first
place!
Alcoholism is not caused by alcohol. It is caused by the underlying
psychological problem that drives the subject to want to "switch off".
History has shown that at a societal level, banning alcohol only makes the
problem worse because while the pain is exacerbated, the underlying cause is
left utterly without treatment. May I add that this fits some definitions of
sadism. Such was the infamous prohibition era in America; and if you are
wondering how the opium dens became so popular in Persia, look to Mohammed's
"brilliant" prohibition idea that offered *nothing* at all to address the
real social and psychological problems that caused people to want to switch
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Number Eleven - GPEMC!
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:27 am Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
<mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HvOdnXMXPugzA0fVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
| Quote: | I look at it like this. Someone comes to your village and forewarns you th
at
your irrigation techniques will eventually turn your land to waste and
advises you on how to change. When you ask this person to substantiate
his claim, he says "trust me", or "because God said so"; and if you
Not so,
|
While I respect that may be your experience, it is not my experience.
| Quote: | Baha'is believe proof is in the word. The truths are self-
evident. For example, at a time when the status of women in Iran was
little better than cattle, Baha'u'llah proclaims the equality of men
and women.
|
And then goes on to use the masculine gender in "Men of the House of
Justice" to, according to his "infallible" successor's experience,
explicitly exclude women from service on the House of Justice.
Now, the argument I elaborate at:
http://fieldcraft.biz/topics/bahai/06-equal-rights-of-men-and-women/index.shtml
to the effect that the lack of opportunity to serve is outweighed by the
opportunity to choose who serves; neglects both the indelibility of
self-serving
human nature, and the fact that men are simply not qualified to make moral
judgements about things beyond the male experience (Eg. pregnancy &
abortion).
Not only is Baha'u'llah's declaration of sexual equality rendered hollow by
the interpretations of his putatively "infallible" successors, but its proof
(for nothing is self-explanatory) in the distinctions of male and female
experience show
that the outcome of that interpretation is incorrect because the basis of
religious decision-making is at it's core experiential as much as it is
scriptural.
| Quote: | don't take his word for it, declares you an enemy of God - if not
explicitly, then implicitly in the wording of address such as to make a sh
ow
of great distrust in you, when it is you asking the questions and he who c
laims to
have all the answers.
Really, this is why Baha'u'llah adovcated the independent
investigation of truth. That we should do away with our ministers and
investigate God's revelation for ourselves?
|
So how does one explain Section 1 of the Kitab-i-Aqdas in light of the
*fact*
of experiential uniqueness as the basis for human belief? How is it that
people who simply don't agree with Baha'u'llah on certain issues come to be
called "enemies of the Faith" instead of simply being understood as human
beings whose individual experience dictates the indelible uniqueness of
their beliefs?
| Quote: | The first teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the investigation of reality. Man
must seek the reality himself, forsaking imitations and adherence to
mere hereditary forms.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 238)
|
And I have to agree with this, but Aqdas Section 1 pressumes that the word
of
Baha'u'llah cannot be contradicted by human experience by replacing good
with the intellectual exercise of recognising something, which by many
acounts is based on a number of untenable assumptions. The fact that a
"Manifestation of God" is by Baha'i definition possessed of "essential
infallibility" disproves the existence of any "Manifestation of God",
because essential infallibility simply has neither historical nor
contemporary examples; and this makes it about as tenable as the "little
folk" of Celtic tradition or the aether-mass creation mechanism invoked to
drive the expanding earth model of Yarkovsky (1888).
Baha'u'llah, by neglecting to address broad contingencies by which his laws
may in some cases cause harm, shows me a lack of qualification much less
"essential infallibility", and the very idea that a system of laws may
remain unchanged for a thousand years speaks against the advancement of
civilisation, also claimed to be an objective of Baha'u'llah's mission,
because in serving a consistent objective laws must necessarily adapt to
culture and culture evolves with technology, not philosophy or religion. The
Lesser Peace was brought about by the ability of the nuclear bomb, a product
of scientific not religious endeavour, to bring the consequences of war home
to those who lead their armies from behind. The benefits of contraceptives
render certain marriage laws obsolete, and the incredible modern divorce
rates show that marriage in its current form may suit a minority (possibly
confined by temperament) but is otherwise an entirely redundant waste of
resources and often a waste of good will in the context of modern culture
that acknowledges the equality of numerous human temperament demographics.
This exemplifies the tip of the iceberg by way of why the outcome of my
investigation does not support Baha'u'llah's claims, or those of any other
"Friend of God", "Prophet of God", "Son of God", "Apostle of God", or
"Manifestation of God", etc. It all comes back to "essential infallibility"
and the fact that as human beings we can *all*, without exception, be quoted
in the book of error.
Yarkovsky, I. O., 1888, "Hypothese cinetique de la Gravitation universelle
et connexion avec la formation des elements chimiques", Moskau
____________________________________________________________
Timothy Casey GPEMC - Eleven is the number@timothycasey.info to email.
Philosophical Essays: http://timothycasey.info
Speed Reading: http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security.
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net
Technical & Web Design: http://web-design-1011.com
--
GPEMC! Anti-SPAM email conditions apply. See www.fieldcraft.biz/GPEMC
The General Public Electronic Mail Contract is free for public use.
If enough of us participate, we can launch a class action to end SPAM
Put GPEMC in your signature to join the fight. Invoice a SPAMmer today! |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Larry Gusaas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:20 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Number Eleven - GPEMC!, 2008/09/25 10:27 PM:
| Quote: | mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HvOdnXMXPugzA0fVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
SNIP /
1. The Baha'i Faith leaves provisions by which a physician may
prescribe daily red wine or anything else should it be deemed to
benefit our health.
Either the translation is wrong or the Baha'u'llah is making an impossibly
tall order here. If you have a serious problem, your doctor or GP will refer
you to a specialist. If after many years of going in circles with monthly
specialist consultation, you still get nowhere, one of them may refer you to
a physician. A Physician is like a specialist but with multiple specialties;
an advantage when dealing with diseases that are routinely misdiagnosed and
referred to the wrong specialist. Most people never meet a physician in
their entire lifetime as they often wind up in teaching, and extremely rare
diseases usually kill you long before they are likely to be diagnosed.
Huh? Maybe in your small part of the world. My GP is a Physician. If I |
want to look up his phone number in the Yellow pages and look under
Doctors, there are no listings. It say see Physicians & Surgeons.
From the Oxford dictionary:
physician - a person qualified to practice medicine.
doctor - 1 a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the translation.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Richard H. Gravelly
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
In the U.S. of A, Physician=Medical Doctor (MD) or Osteopath (DO).
IN the U. K. and its Commonwealth nations; a doctor is a GP and a physician
is a specialist.
Also, in the U.S. of A a "doctor" could be anyone from an optometrist,
dentist, chiropractor or podiatrist to a Ph.D.
Such cannot refer to themselves as physicians.
Richard.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Gusaas" <larry.gusaas@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai
To: <bahai-faith@bcca.org>
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:20 PM
Subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side?
| Quote: | Number Eleven - GPEMC!, 2008/09/25 10:27 PM:
mikeran37@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HvOdnXMXPugzA0fVnZ2dnUVZ_srinZ2d@giganews.com...
SNIP /
1. The Baha'i Faith leaves provisions by which a physician may
prescribe daily red wine or anything else should it be deemed to
benefit our health.
Either the translation is wrong or the Baha'u'llah is making an
impossibly
tall order here. If you have a serious problem, your doctor or GP will
refer
you to a specialist. If after many years of going in circles with
monthly
specialist consultation, you still get nowhere, one of them may refer
you to
a physician. A Physician is like a specialist but with multiple
specialties;
an advantage when dealing with diseases that are routinely misdiagnosed
and
referred to the wrong specialist. Most people never meet a physician in
their entire lifetime as they often wind up in teaching, and extremely
rare
diseases usually kill you long before they are likely to be diagnosed.
Huh? Maybe in your small part of the world. My GP is a Physician. If I
want to look up his phone number in the Yellow pages and look under
Doctors, there are no listings. It say see Physicians & Surgeons.
From the Oxford dictionary:
physician - a person qualified to practice medicine.
doctor - 1 a qualified practitioner of medicine; a physician.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the translation.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind
theirs." - Edgard Varese
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | Either the translation is wrong or the Baha'u'llah is making an impossibly
tall order here. If you have a serious problem, your doctor or GP will refer
you to a specialist. If after many years of going in circles with monthly
specialist consultation, you still get nowhere, one of them may refer you to
a physician. A Physician is like a specialist but with multiple specialties;
an advantage when dealing with diseases that are routinely misdiagnosed and
|
The first premise of your argument that the translation is wrong only
reveals either a lack of knowledge of the Baha'i Faith, persian or
lack of exposure to the Guardians translations. I can't say which, but
only that you need to read for yourself. Because there can be little
argument about the provision in the Baha'i Faith that physicians may
prescribe most anything to benefit our health.
"the use of alcohol is permitted if it is prescribed by a physician
for treatment purposes"
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 350)
| Quote: | referred to the wrong specialist. Most people never meet a physician in
their entire lifetime as they often wind up in teaching, and extremely rare
diseases usually kill you long before they are likely to be diagnosed.
|
The second premise that some may never find physicians or have
access to care leads me to two flaws in your position.
First, in a society which lacks a physician (of which we do have
examples) the average lifespan falls due to many other factors (in
particular war related death, sanitation, and famine). These people
die long before they can even consider the long term benefits that may
be associated with anti-oxidants or any other healthy lifestyle choice
other than moving to a more civilized country.
Secondly, across the board people do not know in advance who does or
who does not have the genetic predisposition to becoming an alcoholic.
As cited below:
"Unprecendented Study Maps Genes Linked to Alcoholism
Could Provide Prevention and Treatment Tools
By Buddy T, About.com
Updated: September 7, 2006
About.com Health's Disease and Condition content is reviewed by Steven
Gans, MD
In a genetic study of unprecedented scope, researchers have used new
genomic technology to identify human genes in people most at risk for
developing alcoholism, which could revolutionize treatment and
prevention options.
Researchers at the Molecular Neurobiology Branch of the National
Institute on Drug Abuse report that their comprehensive scan of the
human genome is the first time the new technology has been used to
comprehensively identify genes linked to substance abuse.
Genetic Variations
Many previous studies have linked specific genes to alcoholism, but
the NIDA researchers identified clusters of genetic variations in 51
chromosomal regions that they believe play a role in alcohol addiction
through cell-to-cell communication, control of protein synthesis,
regulation of development, and cell-to-cell interactions."
Your second proposition falls short because poor people who lack
access to medical care will not be able to know if they are or are not
going to be alcoholic. Genetic alcoholics can attain an almost instant
addiction to alcohol as a very real drug that will lead to their loss
of self control. You can't know if you are not one of these people
until you try. And right now this applies to the more wealthy
societies as well.
| Quote: | Grapes and grape juice can upset the stomach in cases whereas a red wine in
moderation with the food does not; and a little heartburn is a very serious
|
Sounds like a personal issue to discuss with your physician. Because
with my medical knowledge, I can say that if grape juice is upsetting
your stomach you may have an H. pylori infection or even worse some
type of cancer either way it needs to be checked.
| Quote: | thing. GPs in Australia prescribe heavily subsidized medication because of a
link between oesophagitis and GI cancer (which is the number 1 cancer in
Australia)
|
| Quote: | These statistics only apply to excessive alcohol consumption or alcohol
abuse. They apply in no way to the moderate and thoughtful consumption that
|
Right and who knows who is going to be the alcoholic that goes driving
this week? We are just at the beginning of recognizing that alcohol
can have strong chemical drives that make it near irresitible to
some.
| Quote: | I endorse. On this point I may add that your microwave oven doesn't come
with a fixed notice for you not to use it to dry your baby because
|
But there isn't a group of people out there who when exposed to
microwaves suddenly become irresistibly drawn to it with the need to
cook their own head.
| Quote: | Furthermore, blaming the substance and not the choice to abuse it is part of
the problem. I can choose to have half a glass of red wine with my meal if
|
You're presuming that we're all the same. That because you can handle
your beer, somehow the other people who can't are weaker than you. You
can't know this. And with genetics, the scientific evidence is against
you here.
| Quote: | "Deaths from HIV/AIDS: 15,245 deaths in 2000 (NIAID); 14,802 deaths
reported in USA 1999 (NVSR Sep 2001) "
What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not because the rich and
|
"Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any
other region of the world. An estimated 22 million people were living
with HIV at the end of 2007 and approximately 1.9 million additional
people were infected with HIV during that year. In just the past year,
the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5
million people in this region. More than eleven million children have
been orphaned by AIDS.1
The extent of the AIDS crisis is only now becoming clear in many
African countries, as increasing numbers of people with HIV are
becoming ill. In the absence of massively expanded prevention,
treatment and care efforts, it is expected that the AIDS death toll in
sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rise. This means that impact of
the AIDS epidemic on these societies will be felt most strongly in the
course of the next ten years and beyond. Its social and economic
consequences are already widely felt, not only in the health sector
but also in education, industry, agriculture, transport, human
resources and the economy in general. "
http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm
You were saying? You're proposing that AIDs only affects the rich and
famous and not the 1.5 million africans who died last year? At this
point I fail to see even the need to continue in the discussion. Your
facts presented are so far askew that this engagement strikes me more
as a waste of time. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | what does "Sock-Puppet'allah" mean
|
I don't know what the author of this title intended but I do know
the connotation of the above title and am surprised that the
moderators allowed it through.
This comes from the paranoid theory that Baha'u'llah was a puppet
contrived by the british to disrupt Iran's government and religion.
Adding sock to the title just further belittles Baha'u'llah. As the
author has demonstrated multiple attacks on the faith with out
substantiation, I feel fairly confident in the assumption that this is
the intended meaning. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
PaulHammond
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:50 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
On 26 Sep, 17:15, mikera...@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
thing. GPs in Australia prescribe heavily subsidized medication because
of a
link between oesophagitis and GI cancer (which is the number 1 cancer in
Australia)
These statistics only apply to excessive alcohol consumption or alcohol
abuse. They apply in no way to the moderate and thoughtful consumption t
hat
Right and who knows who is going to be the alcoholic that goes driving
this week? We are just at the beginning of recognizing that alcohol
can have strong chemical drives that make it near irresitible to
some.
I endorse. On this point I may add that your microwave oven doesn't come
with a fixed notice for you not to use it to dry your baby because
But there isn't a group of people out there who when exposed to
microwaves suddenly become irresistibly drawn to it with the need to
cook their own head.
Furthermore, blaming the substance and not the choice to abuse it is par
t of
the problem. I can choose to have half a glass of red wine with my meal
if
You're presuming that we're all the same.
|
I think that's precisely NOT what Tim is doing! hasn't the spiritual
side of this conversation been predicated on the idea that everybody's
experience is DIFFERENT?
| Quote: | That because you can handle
your beer, somehow the other people who can't are weaker than you. You
can't know this. And with genetics, the scientific evidence is against
you here.
|
Yes - classic straw man arguments - argue against something the other
person didn't say.
Why are you personalising this into making Tim say "I'm stronger than
others because I can take my wine"? What he actually said is that
it's a mistake to blame a substance for something that's actually
caused by addictive behaviour or personalities.
I have a feeling Tim would have a lot of sympathy with what you are
pointing out - that it's an interaction between an addictive
personality and the fermented grape which causes problems with
alcohol, not the substance alone.
| Quote: | "Deaths from HIV/AIDS: 15,245 deaths in 2000 (NIAID); 14,802 deaths
reported in USA 1999 (NVSR Sep 2001) "
What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not because the rich and
"Sub-Saharan Africa is more heavily affected by HIV and AIDS than any
other region of the world. An estimated 22 million people were living
with HIV at the end of 2007 and approximately 1.9 million additional
people were infected with HIV during that year. In just the past year,
the AIDS epidemic in Africa has claimed the lives of an estimated 1.5
million people in this region. More than eleven million children have
been orphaned by AIDS.1
The extent of the AIDS crisis is only now becoming clear in many
African countries, as increasing numbers of people with HIV are
becoming ill. In the absence of massively expanded prevention,
treatment and care efforts, it is expected that the AIDS death toll in
sub-Saharan Africa will continue to rise. This means that impact of
the AIDS epidemic on these societies will be felt most strongly in the
course of the next ten years and beyond. Its social and economic
consequences are already widely felt, not only in the health sector
but also in education, industry, agriculture, transport, human
resources and the economy in general. "
http://www.avert.org/aafrica.htm
You were saying? You're proposing that AIDs only affects the rich and
famous and not the 1.5 million africans who died last year? At this
point I fail to see even the need to continue in the discussion. Your
facts presented are so far askew that this engagement strikes me more
as a waste of time.
|
Again, you are misrepresenting what has been said.
| Quote: | What about malaria? The only reason AIDS gets more press is because it
affects the rich and famous while malaria does not because the rich and
|
Tim says AIDS does affect the rich. He hasn't said that AIDS doesn't
affect the poor.
He said that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
the western press doesn't talk about it much.
Obviously, AIDS affects the poor even more than it affects the rich -
but as I see it Tim was trying to make you think about malaria, and
why that is considered a less "sexy" disease than HIV. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Larry Gusaas
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Richard H. Gravelly, 2008/09/26 1:34 AM:
| Quote: | In the U.S. of A, Physician=Medical Doctor (MD) or Osteopath (DO).
IN the U. K. and its Commonwealth nations; a doctor is a GP and a physician
is a specialist.
|
Canada is a Commonwealth nation. Here a Physician is a Medical Doctor,
not a specialist. Be careful of your generalizations.
--
Larry I. Gusaas
Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Canada
Website: http://larry-gusaas.com
"An artist is never ahead of his time but most people are far behind theirs." - Edgard Varese |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Romane
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 9:43 am Post subject: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
Good morning Mike
Wahid Azal is the name behind the name. He is readily researched via
Google, a fact he openly admits at at least one of his blogs, where he
refers the reader to Glaysher's website to obtain the "facts". He
believes that (quote) "Bahaism is a very dangerous (ultra-rightwing)
Stalinist cult with ties to some of the most nefarious (usually
reactionary ultra-rightwing) political forces and actors of the past
one-hundred odd years."
Romane
mikeran37@yahoo.com wrote:
| Quote: |
what does "Sock-Puppet'allah" mean
I don't know what the author of this title intended but I do know
the connotation of the above title and am surprised that the
moderators allowed it through.
This comes from the paranoid theory that Baha'u'llah was a puppet
contrived by the british to disrupt Iran's government and religion.
Adding sock to the title just further belittles Baha'u'llah. As the
author has demonstrated multiple attacks on the faith with out
substantiation, I feel fairly confident in the assumption that this is
the intended meaning.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: Alcohol Was: Re: God's Side? |
|
|
| Quote: | Yes - classic straw man arguments - argue against something the other
person didn't say.
|
Yet ironically you do exactly the same thing yourself with me. I never
once stated that it wasn't a choice, just a much harder choice for
some people. It is a fact that all addictions can be treated and
broken. Of course the easiest way to avoid this addiction is to never
drink at all.
| Quote: | You were saying? You're proposing that AIDs only affects the rich and
famous and not the 1.5 million africans who died last year? At this
point I fail to see even the need to continue in the discussion. Your
facts presented are so far askew that this engagement strikes me more
as a waste of time.
Again, you are misrepresenting what has been said.
He said that malaria does NOT affect the rich, which is a reason why
the western press doesn't talk about it much.
|
Am I misrepresenting? Let's assume your best case as you have
presented it: That the major reason HIV receives this recognition is
because the powerful rich can also contract it making it a 'sexy'
disease. This is a well played out paranoid theory.
The reason HIV carriers such weight with the CDC has little to do with
the rich and everything to do with the fact that unlike malaria it
follows a potentially exponential contagion route. The rate of spread
for HIV if left unchecked will far exceed any other disease out there.
It represents the legitimate fear of any intelligent medical
practitioner to know that HIV can easily become a plague of pandemic
proportions. As cited in the abstract below:
The first postmodern pandemic: 25 years of HIV/ AIDS
L. O. Kallings
MD, Professor Emeritus, Clinical Microbiology, Former Secretary-
General of the International AIDS Society
Correspondence to Prof. Lars O. Kallings MD, PhD, Alevägen 4, SE-182
67 Djursholm, Sweden.
J Intern Med 2008; 263: 218–243.
ABSTRACT
Abstract
Science responded to the challenge of AIDS by rapidly identifying
aetiology, describing pathogenesis and transmission routes, and
developing diagnostic tests and treatment. However, this did not
prevent the global spread of HIV, with 25 million fatal cases so far,
another 33 million infected, and disastrous socioeconomic and
demographic consequences. In spite of unprecedented political
attention and financial resources, the response is falling further
behind the growth of the epidemic. This is partly due to the unique
characteristics of the virus, such as persistent infection, vertical
transmission and a variability that allows it to escape immunity and
antiretroviral drugs, and partly due to human characteristics such as
a strong procreative instinct, drug use and ostracism. Denial, myths
and complacency are major obstacles to rational measures. With no cure
or vaccine in sight, scaling up prevention is of paramount importance.
To meet the goal of universal access to prevention, treatment and care
by 2010 would require a quadrupling of funding to an estimated US$42
billion by 2010, including adequate overall strengthening of
healthcare systems, but in any case, the world will have to learn to
live with HIV for the foreseeable future."
Ignore the fact that HIV alone will kill 1.5 million in Africa this
year. Based on its' method of transmission and in particular how it
strips our immune system we can expect other plagues from
opportunistic bacteria (ie. drug resistant TB) which are allowed to
breed and develop resistance in the humans hosts of HIV.
Even should this disease be contained at 1.5 million per year in
Africa, it an expectation that a major plague affecting us all could
emerge from this population of AIDS victims.
How could a person be familiar with this subject and claim that the
major reason we fund HIV R&D is because a few rich people have it?
After 20+ years of R&D this disease still represents a greater risk to
all of us than any other out there including malaria. Malaria doesn't
carry the likelihood of jumping out of the jungle and killing off
large segments of our population. This has nothing to do with sexy.
| Quote: | Obviously, AIDS affects the poor even more than it affects the rich -
but as I see it Tim was trying to make you think about malaria, and
why that is considered a less "sexy" disease than HIV. |
|
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
