From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:19 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Dale Grider wrote in message <3547CD84.443D@bellsouth.net>... >Roger says, >"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." > >But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. We are considering >the true nature of His Resurrection and His station. > >Roger says of my citation of 1Cor 15:12, >"this verse of Paul does not have to refer to a bodily >resurrection in order for it to be truthful. > >But he fails to recognize that it does nesacerily indicate that the >distinct person of Jesus IS referred to. It is a literally personal >Resurrection, not some generic possesion by a Christ that other >manifestations may be also possesed by. Thus, in the end, my point is >valid.Jesus Christ IS the Christ as revealed in His literal, and >personal Resurrection. It is only Baha'i apologists who keep building >the straw man argument against Christ's strictly physical Resurrection. >Scripture tells us it was physical (eating fish, embracing etc) but more >signifigant is the reality that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, literally and >personally raised eternally, is THE Christ.Apart from Him other >claimants are impostors. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:19 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Dale Grider wrote in message <3547CD84.443D@bellsouth.net>... >Roger says, >"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." > >But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. We are considering >the true nature of His Resurrection and His station. > >Roger says of my citation of 1Cor 15:12, >"this verse of Paul does not have to refer to a bodily >resurrection in order for it to be truthful. > >But he fails to recognize that it does nesacerily indicate that the >distinct person of Jesus IS referred to. It is a literally personal >Resurrection, not some generic possesion by a Christ that other >manifestations may be also possesed by. Thus, in the end, my point is >valid.Jesus Christ IS the Christ as revealed in His literal, and >personal Resurrection. It is only Baha'i apologists who keep building >the straw man argument against Christ's strictly physical Resurrection. >Scripture tells us it was physical (eating fish, embracing etc) but more >signifigant is the reality that Jesus Christ of Nazareth, literally and >personally raised eternally, is THE Christ.Apart from Him other >claimants are impostors. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:20 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw fRe: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Roger Reini wrote in message <35498079.12737832@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:55:28 GMT, Dale Grider >wrote: > >>Roger says, >>"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >>of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >>ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." >> >>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. > >I rest my case. It's clear to me that further discussion at this time >would be counterproductive. The differences of opinion are too >profound. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:20 AM Subject: fw fRe: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Roger Reini wrote in message <35498079.12737832@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 05:55:28 GMT, Dale Grider >wrote: > >>Roger says, >>"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >>of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >>ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." >> >>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. > >I rest my case. It's clear to me that further discussion at this time >would be counterproductive. The differences of opinion are too >profound. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: fw Re: John Noland's long letter 1 of 3 fw Dale Grider wrote in message <3547CED9.698C@bellsouth.net>... >I would like to now respond to John Noland's Letter from Mon, 13 Apr >1998. John opens saying, > >"This is a rather long note, so to make it easier to follow I've divided >it into sections." > > Rather than deal with the whole 29 page letter in one response, I think >it will be better for readers if I divide the document and respond to >the sections. There seemed to be three. Section one was an introduction >in which John also generally shared some of his own outlook on what he >feels Baha'i belief asserts and how it relates to what he feels >Christian belief asserts, with quotes from Scripture (the Bible) and >authoritative Baha'i writers. That will be the focus of this immediate >response. > Section two entailed what I will call a Baha'i revisionist history of >the development of Christian Doctrine. In response to that section I >will detail why I feel this is an accurate label for his inaccurately >biased "history". I found it to be based upon misinformation from >secondary sources that didn't match up with the reality of the primary >sources when checked. John says in the second section of his letter that >he has not put any Baha'i bias on his "history". Therefore I will assume >that the mistakes are unintentional ones in which he has found >inaccurate secondary sources that say what he wants to hear, and has >gone no further. There are plenty of "historical" secondary sources to >support ANYONE"S point of view. One must go to the primary sources for >the kinds of definitive conclusions John has so confidently proclaimed. >I will show that he certainly has not done so. > Section three is John's response to my argument that Jesus Christ, as >biblical Messiah, had to be God incarnate. I think it includes some >interesting examples of just how context considerations are crucial in >allowing a text to say what it intends to say. It will be the final >response in the series answering John's long letter. > >In the first section John says, > > "Our views on the station of Christ are not that far apart. As I will >demonstrate, they are nearly identical. Baha'i's do not consider Christ >to be God. ...Where our opinion REALLY diverges is that where I say >Christ, Dale says Jesus Christ of Nazareth... > ...It should be noted here, that the subtle differences of belief over >issues such as the Incarnation are far too complex to be easily >resolved. My over-riding objective is to simply show that the Baha'i >view can be supported from the Bible and that this doctrine is not the >necessary or intended meaning of the Scriptures." > > There is a serious problem within this statement that needs to be >pointed out. John concedes that our differences lie in that Christians >believe Jesus to be God but Baha'is don't. He concedes that while >Christians believe that the "person" of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is >specifically THE singular identity of "the Christ", Baha'is profess a >generic Christ Spirit that many different persons can possess. Thus, it >is an impossible statement for him to say that, "Our views on the >station of Christ are not that far apart ... they are nearly >identical.", or for him to speak of these differences as being "subtle". >They are obviously dramatic differences, by definition, with >fundamentally different implications. > > > John next begins to share his understanding of Baha'i belief concerning >the Station of Christ; > > "Baha'is also accept Jesus' divine nature. ...but some Christians >believe this recognition falls short for, according to Christian >doctrine, Jesus is more than divine. He is God. In other words, there is >a distinction that concerns the difference between possessing the >attributes of God's divinity and actually being God in essence. Baha'is >believe that through the physical and historical Person, Jesus Christ, >the divine attributes of God were made manifest in the world, but that >God's essence is too transcendent to be fully embodied in flesh. God's >omnipresence and omnipotence make it impossible for finite creatures, >like ourselves, to comprehend His Being. ... The Baha'i argument rests >on the simple logic that an INFINITE God cannot be contained, especially >in a finite physical form such as a human body." > > But what "simple logic" would observe is that one cannot speak of God >in terms of "omnipotence" as John does, and then presume to detail what >God "cannot" do. Indeed, ALL Christians, who are truly Christian, >concede the inarguable intention of Scripture to proclaim that, >"embodied in flesh", ("the Word", which "WAS" God, ), "became flesh and >dwelt among us." (Jesus Christ of Nazareth), John1. > John Noland says that it is impossible for "finite creatures, like >ourselves to comprehend His being...". Yet Scripture distinctly tells us >of Jesus that he was with God from the begining and that he is literally >/personally raised alive eternally into the future. He is revealed as >distinctly NOT being a "finite" creature if one accepts those Scripture >passages that show us that His incarnation was just exactly that; an >incarnation in the flesh of a singular and eternal person whom we know >by way of that singular incarnation as "Jesus Christ of Nazareth". This >person "Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is said in Colossians 1:15 to >specifically be the One by whom, > “all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and >invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all >things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in >Him all things hold together. ... For God was pleased to have all His >fullness dwell in Him.” > > Thus, despite the fact that John concedes that we "finite" creatures >cannot "comprehend His being", he is set to confidently define God's >limitations against the clear proclamation in Scripture that "embodied >in flesh" this eternal person who was in existance "before all things", >this "Jesus Christ of Nazareth", has "all" of God's "fullness". > The differences in outlook between Scripture and Baha'i doctrine on >Jesus' station are obviously not at all trivial as John suggests, much >less being "almost identicle". > >John Says, > "According to Baha'i teachings, if the infinite God were reduced to a >finite form, He would cease to be God. Shoghi Effendi writes: the >invisible yet rational God Who, however much we extol the divinity of >His >Manifestations on earth, can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His >unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete >and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so >incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of >Baha'u'llah cease immediately to be God." > (World Order 112) > > But let's do use logic to analyze Effendi's statement. Again. like >John, we find that Effendi contradicts the definition of "omnipotence" >which he attributes to God and then tells us what that omnipotent God >"can in no wise" do. When we look at what omnipotent means, consider how >mortals indeed cannot presume to fathom the abilities of such a God, and >use that as a background context with which to appraoch our reading of >Scripture, we are left with no alternative but to allow God to be God, >in the flesh if and as He desires, in accordance with the boldly >proclaimed Message of Jesus Christ. Contrary to Shoghi Effendi's >illogical outlook, if an "omnipotent" God was found so limited in His >ability (albeit beyond our comprehension) that He could "in no wise >incarnate" Himself, even within the "limited frame of a mortal being", >even if and as He so desired, it is in this condition that He would >"cease immediately to be God." > Let us keep in mind that, especially in light of the Scripture's >intentions concerning Jesus, some of which have just been shared, >allowing that God could incarnate "all of His fullness" within mortal >flesh is not a mutually contradictory statement. It is the clear >proclamation of a mystery. It is not the same thing as saying that God >would be less than God if He "couldn't", for example, make Himself be >the embodiment of "hatred" or "evil". Such a case as that would indeed >break the Aristotelian law of non contradiction, recognizing that God >is, by definition, said to be the embodiment of "love". (The logical Law >of non contradiction states that "A" cannot at the same time be >"non-A"). God is said to be one in being, but three in persons that >share that being, not that there are three gods, and then >contradictorily that there is one God. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is said >to be incarnate God in "person", not that Jesus as God incarnate means >that God would be "reduced" to a physical finite state. The latter non >biblical statements in each case would, of course, break the logical law >of non contradiction. > >But what then about John's citation of 1Kings? > >"But will God indeed dwell on earth? Behold, heaven and the heaven of >heavens cannot contain You. (1 Kings 8:27)" > > Here John has taken a quote by Solomon out of context and poured >meaning into it that is revealed as impossible when the verse is set >into its proper full context. John uses the snippet to suggest that >Solomon was reflecting upon the Baha'i notion that God would be "unable" >to incarnate Himself within a human person. But if we read even what >immediately follows in Solomon's prayer we see evidence of a very >different intention. >" But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven >of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have >built?" > > We now can see that Solomon was reflecting specifically upon the >physical building of a Temple that he had just built for God. Solomon is >not establishing limitations for God. He is expressing the limitations >of his own human understanding. The contextual intention in his prayer >was that the meager physical temple that he had built seemed >insufficient to provide a dwelling place for God. Indeed he was TRYING >to imagine what is nesacerily beyond human comprehension and is ASKING >God how such a thing could be possible in the opening of this prayer. It >has nothing to do with proclaiming a limitation on the part of God's >ability. In fact, if we read the rest of the chapter we find that John's >rigid literal interpretation is impossible. For it has Solomon >completely contradicting himself in literally ever subsequent use of the >word "heaven" which he defines as God's dwelling place throughout the >rest of the chapter. >8:30, "...and hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place..." >8:39 "Then hear thou in heaven thy dwelling place..." > If we take John's interpretation of 8:27 out of its immediate >contextual meaning, rather than see it in light of Solomon's musing on >the Glory of God from the perspective of having just completed the >physical temple building and asking God how he could dwell there, we >force the Bible's reputedly wisest man into arbtrarily and immediately >contradicting himself therafter to the end of the chapter. "Heaven", >much less the "heaven of heavens", being called by Solomon God's very >dwelling place, would certainly be assumed to "contain" Him in some >fashion. Thus we see the impossibility of John's use of the passage to >try to suggest that Solomon was making a doctrinal proclamation >concerning the limitations of God's omnipotent ability. He is asking God >how such a thing could be possible and considering how, according to >HUMAN understanding, such a thing would seem impossible. In fact, the >position is no less true for Solomon's question than for Shoghi >Effendi's skewed "logic", > "But will God indeed dwell on the earth?" > If he is God, and he so desires, he most certainly can. In Christ Jesus >Scripture says that He did. According to John's interpretation we would >have to observe that Solomon, if he were intending to state such a >limitation on God's ability to incarnate Himself within a human person, >would be in no more of a position to arrogantly do so than Shoghi >Effendi. Certainly such was not the tone or intention of Solomon's >prayer. For remember, Baha'i doctrine says that God "can in no wise" >incarnate Himself. Solomon can not be made to seem to limit God in this >way in the passage John cites. > John may wish to criticize that my interpretation (which considers the >surrounding circumstances and context of the passage) presents a >rationalized way around Solomon's proclaiming of a spiritual law >concerning God. But he can only do so by isolating the passage out of >the contextual circumstances the prayer is set in, and by ignoring >Solomon's subsequent repeated use of the term "heaven" thereafter in the >chapter as indicating God's dwelling place. Thus, if John doesn't like >my interpretation, it yet stands as being reasonably possible compared >to the contextual impossibility of his own. > Additionally, it is worth noting that besides John's unscholarly >isogesis, it is also invalid for John to quote Solomon concerning the >nature or "station" of the Messiah anyway . Unlike his father before him >or Isaiah after him, Solomon was not considered a prophet per se, and >the kind of revelation that would reveal the nature of the Messiah would >not be found in his writings. This simple observation reveals the flaw >in John's later argument that I should not use prophecy to try to >"prove" anything. Momentarily skipping ahead in his letter, he said, > "Using prophecy to set absolute limits on the exclusive domain of God >or to prove the deity of Christ is an incorrect application. It is >difficult enough just proving that a given prophecy is referring to >Jesus, much less using it to prove a doctrine. Even the prophecies that >are proof-texted in the NT can be made to appear false by a clever >arguer. I personally take prophecy with a grain of salt as it applies to >Jesus and to Baha'u'llah." > Thus, instead of relying on the study of Old Testament prophecy in >seeking answers to the nature of the Messiah (The fundamental place such >revelation about the as yet unincarnated Jesus is found in the OT), what >we find John doing is dismissing prophecy as undependable and relying on >invalid passages from writers that specifically don't include God's >prophetic revelation about Him. As we will later see in my detailed >response to his attitude concerning biblical prophecy, it is not at all >difficult to know that prophecy is referring to Jesus Christ of >Nazareth, the "Lamb that was slain" (Revelation 5:11-14), regardless of >which "Advent" John chooses to discuss. > In any event it is curious to see a Baha'i use Scripture according to >such rigid literal isogesis whose forced interpretation won't fit into >the rest of the passage, while Baha'i Bible interpretation so ususally >depends upon the opposite use of symbolic redefining of passages to >change the meaning when a literal interpretation IS the only one that >fits the context of the passage. (Luke 24:36, John 20:17, John 21:12, >John 20:27, vs. Abdul Baha's SAQ, "the Resurrections of the >manifestations are not of the body", "not an outward fact") > > > >John says, > >"Although Jesus never directly states that He is God...". > > The Gospel of John 8:56 "I tell you the truth', Jesus answered, 'before >Abraham was born, I am!", is pretty definitive John. The Jews He said it >to certainly understood what He was saying and tried to stone Him for >saying it. They can be found to have directly accused Him of claiming to >be God. He did not disagree with them or "correct" what Baha'i doctrine >would call their "misunderstanding" of His intentions. They understood >exactly what He was claiming and His tacit lack of reproof within the >context of His having been in the temple specifically to teach and >communicate the truth is definitive enough John. He claimed to be God >and the Jews accused Him of blasphemy. > > > >In regards to Jesus station, John quotes Scripture, > > I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these >things. (John 8:28) > > For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me >gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. > (John 12:49) > >Then John concludes, > > "Any statement by Christ implying He was God would have been a response >to God's command, as one speaking on God's behalf. Christ speaking as >God is no different from Moses speaking as God when God commanded Him to >say: >"You have not eaten bread nor have you drunk wine or similar drink, >that you may know that I am the Lord your God."(Deut. 29:6)." > > But, as is usual with this line of argument against the deity of Jesus, >John isolates passages that represent only the human aspect of Jesus' >incarnate being and He excludes the other aspect of Jesus sayings that >add a very different dimension to the station of Jesus Christ's person; >one that John is attempting to deny Him. These were shared with him in >the letter he is responding to. We see none of those considerations >mentioned here. One well known Scriptural example will make my point and >hopefully lead the reader to seek beyond the biased perspective John has >painted. We recall how Jesus said, not that He would give "life" to >those the Father told Him to, but specifically that he, Jesus Christ, >would personally give eternal life (an attribute of God alone if ever >there was one) "to those to whom he (Jesus) is pleased to give it". When >one argues only from the human side of Jesus' nature, it is from the >carnal perspective of limited human understanding that denies inarguable >indications in Scripture that demand faith, but are not unclear in their >intentions. Christ was fully man. As such He was humble and in >submission. But He was also fully God, inarguably so from the reality of >His ablity to give eternal life, and to whom HE was pleased to give it. >If we are unable to accept such a "mystery" on faith when it is so >definitively presented, we deny that basic truth that God's totality is >beyond human comprehension to fully understand. One may not understand >the dual nature of Jesus, but it is presented in Scripture that He was >man, (John 12:49, "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the >Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I >should speak.", and fully God, (John 5:22, “The Father judges not but >has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son ><<>> they honor the Father.”). > This is obviously quite different than anything Moses said at God's >command. No one ever tried to stone Moses for blasphemy. And he was >definitvely portrayed as a sinner (despite the Baha'i doctrine that >would have him a sinless manifestation). At Deuteronomy 32:50 God >Himself says to Moses, > > “There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be >gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor >and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith >with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah >Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness >among the Israelites.” > > The same is seen again at Numbers 20:12, > > “But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me >enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not >bring this community into the land I give them." > > There is thus no comparison between the claims of Jesus, God the Son, >who was able to personally give eternal life and have honor "even" as it >was due the Father, with the station of Moses, a sinner. > >John goes on to say, > > "Baha'is consider Baha'u'llah to be the return of Christ. "How can that >be?" you may ask. Well, Baha'is believe that there is only one Christ. >Throughout eternity there has always been, and will ever be, only one >Christ - unique, unchanging, indivisible, peerless and incomparable. His >greatness is infinitely beyond human comprehension. His importance >impossible to exaggerate or over-emphasize. So, Baha'u'llah claims to be >the same spiritual Christ that walked the hills of Galilee two thousand >years ago, 'whose goings forth have been from old, from eternity.'(Micah >5:2), and who vowed to return with a new and different name. Dale... >please don't use the argument that only Jesus can return PERSONALLY, to >respond to this document. It's a separate issue and deserves a full >discussion of it's own. Thank you." > > John argues that Jesus' "person" was temporal and only an eternal >Christ spirit within Him was eternally signifigant. He does not want to >consider the evidence or implications I presented of Jesus Christ of >Nazareth's PERSONAL (singular) identity as that Christ. But let us back >up and consider first just who the "Christ" would have to be. Read >carefully again John's own assumptions about the Christ. He says, >"Baha'is believe that there is only one Christ." He then speaks of this >singular Christ person as a "He". John speaks of the Christ in terms >like "his" greatness, and "his" importance. He quotes Scripture >concerning this personal "Christ" who has "goings" and makes "vows". >This "Christ", according to John's own assumptions, is inarguably a >single "PERSON" of distinct identity. I am formally establishing here >that John and I (Baha'i doctrine and Christian) seem to agree that "the >Christ" is not some impersonal "force" put on like a robe around other >"persons". > Furthermore, this Christ person is revealed as equal to God. He is >described, not as simply "divine" in the sense John means it, but as of >deity. This "Christ Person" is, according to Scripture, the intelligent, >active agent personally responsible for creation of all that has been >created (Colossians 1:15). This "PERSON", the Christ, is in an eternal >identity of distinct relationship with the Father. This Christ person is >"uncreated" and eternal. This Christ person is the eternal "Word" which >"IS" God, in perfect union with the Father, yet mysteriously distinct as >well (John1). Thus, even before we consider whether Jesus of Nazareth is >that Christ incarnate, we can definitively see that that "oneness" >theology of Islam and Baha'i religion stands as distinctly >antiscriptural. The Christ is revealed as a person who is God, distinct >from the Father, (who is obviously also God), despite their mysterious >union within the Godhead. Such as is presented in Scripture is >unmistakeable, beyond human comprehension, and needy of faith. John says >Baha'is have such faith in Scripture as the inspired Word of God. Yet >his Baha'i theology is set against these unmistakeble Christian >doctrines that lie inherent in the Bible? > John states, >"Isaiah does not say that the Messiah will be Mighty God in the flesh, >rather He shall be 'Mighty God' in name." > > This "name" however is a identifying label for a distinct "person", >Jesus Christ. Thus, if Scripture tells us that this Messiah IS the >Christ, (not just a person possesed by the Christ), then Jesus MUST be >God according to very difinitive Scripture. > The consideration then, beyond the Baha'i fallacy of oneness theology, >is to see whether Scripture reveals Jesus (and others like Baha'u'llah) >as being "possessed" by the "Christ God Person", or if Jesus is >portrayed as representing the literal and singular incarnation of that >person. We know that Scripture teaches the reality of demon possession >so we know that the recognition of "the Christ" as a distinct person >does not, in and of itself, prove that Jesus is the "incarnation" of >that person. Baha'i doctrine seems to preach "holy possession" of a >"manifestation's" "human" person by "the Christ", much as demon >possession would be the evil converse of the principle. (Of course this >has fatal problems for Baha'i theology as well. For Baha'i doctrine does >not accept the absolute reality of Satan or demons as literal, true >spiritual beings who could, with independent purposful sentience >"possess" someone. Scripture does.). At any rate, it would seem that >John asserts that the human person of Jesus was "possesssed" by a >seperate, DIFFERENT eternal "Christ person" that others may share. > Now at this point I want to point out a profession that John made in >his former letter because it establishes a good groundrule by which to >investigate this fascinating (and non trivial) difference in outlook. He >said that,"We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at >their source. With Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to >ignore any dogma or doctrine associated with that religion and search >for truth directly from Scripture." > My argument has been, and will now be, that Scripture does not speak of >a Christ person that many "manifestations" may be "possesed" by. It >speaks of Jesus BEING that Christ, a singular incarnation of the Christ >person. If this is true, then Jesus' person is God, even as He claimed >and the Jews executed Him for as a blasphemer. "Before Abraham was, I >AM" ("I AM" being the OT name for God given by God to Moses at the >burning bush and that Jesus Christ of Nazareth specifically attributed >to Himself). > > Phillipians 2:5 >"...at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth >and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is >Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” > This doesn't proclaim the "Christ person" as distinct from the "Jesus >person" John. It proclaims them as being the same identity, the same >discrete person. The Christ is not said to be the Lord, but JESUS >Christ, specifically. > >In John 11:25 Jesus says, > “I am the Resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live >even though he dies. And whomever lives and believes in me will never >die.” > > Again, this historical human person we know as "Jesus Christ" >identifies Himself AS BEING the Christ person (<<< " I " >>> am...) , >not as being seperately possesed by a Christ person. > > But John himself cites a passage relevant to my point, though not in >the fashion he thought I would claim it to be, > >"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Heb. 13:8)" > > John responds, "This essential truth has nothing to with the physical >body of Jesus." > > No, it doesn't John. But it has everything to do with His "person", His >personal identity, which John calls only "human". It is here revealed as >being synonomous with that of the "Christ, God, Person". It does not say >that only "the Christ" is "the same yesterday, today and forever.", It >specifically says that the person of Jesus Christ of Nazareth is. > > >Yet john argues, > >"The Christ of the Bible is a divine and spiritual Presence, eternally >inseparable from God Himself. It follows that the name He chooses, the >human temple He inhabits as the 'Word made flesh' - these are cosmetic >superficialities which in no way change His inward spiritual identity." > >Later John asks, "is Christ's uniqueness a physical characteristic?" > > But we have already just seen that his argument that Jesus' physical >body was a "cosmetic superficiality" is an irrelevant straw man >argument. For what we are speaking of here that IS crucial indeed has >nothing to do with flesh. It has to do with identifying discrete >"persons". And that "inward spiritual identity" John speaks of is >revealed in Scripture as being incarnately identifiable AS the person >of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ of Nazareth, as a person, and as John >himself observes, "is the same yesterday, today and forever." This >obviously contradicts John's assertion that Jesus himself, as only a >"human personality", was only temporal by comparison to the eternal >Christ who somehow possessed Him. Jesus IS the eternal Christ according >to the Scripture from Hebrews 13:8 that John himself cites. > > >John says, > "The Bible tells us that when the pre-existent Word of God came 'down >from heaven' (John 6:38), He 'was made flesh, and dwelt among us' (John >1:14). Did He, by taking human form, become forever trapped within >the body He inhabited at that time? Can an all-powerful, ever-present >spiritual Entity be limited in this way and thus be unable to reappear >later in a new and outwardly different human guise?" > The interesting observation here is to notice how John has turned the >Baha'i doctrine that indeed limits God's omnipotent ability ("God can >"in no wise" incarnate Himself...") inside out as if to be in support of >an argument IN DEFENSE of God's infinite ability! The answer to this >topsy turvy of conflicting philosophy is the same as before. It isn't a >limitation if He desires it and no one ever suggested that by willing it >He would be "trapped". It is also a gross assumption to state that the >singular Christ person, Jesus Christ, would be "unable" (Man setting >limits on God's ability again) to "reappear". What IS "revealed" as >impossible (and distinctly warned against in Scripture) is that any >OTHER "person" can come claiming to be "the Christ", Jesus is the >singular manifestation of that identity, that singular person, then, >now, and eternally according to Hebrews 13:8. > > Matthew 24:3, "As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the >disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this >happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the >age?" Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. For many >will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, and will deceive many. >...At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, >'There he is!' do not believe it." > > There is no "Christ" except Jesus Christ. > > > John argues, > >"...any religious dogma that confines Christ to purely human categories, >that diminishes His power and glory or in any way compromises His >universality, must be viewed with suspicion." > > This is true. The Christian doctrine of Christ's incarnate deity does >not "confine" Him in any such way. However God is well "able" to veil >His Glory and is able to humble Himself that we may witness in Him the >spiritual characteristic of perfect Agape love. > >John says, > >"Now, Dale will take issue with everything I've said to this point, >explaining that Jesus of Nazareth and Christ are inseparable. He offers >nothing in the way of direct proof for this position, he just states >that it is so and we must accept it." > > Proof given is not always proof received John. Such as I gave before, >and give now, can obviously be rationalized away, even by one who >unwittingly provides convincing examples of the incorrectness of their >own stance, > >"The definitive verse in the Bible supporting Dale's view is: > Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Heb. 13:8) > > John calls my citation of definitive Scriptures that support the >distinguishing aspects of Jesus glorified body as "unbiblical". The >verses are there. They show that Jesus Resurrection was certainly a >"material" fact. (eating fish, touching, Jesus specifically claiming to >have flesh and bones etc). Thus, how can they be "unbiblical"? > > >Reflecting on the dual aspects revealed in Scripture of Jesus' station >John reflects, > >"... Some passages depict Christ as identical with God Himself. Others, >while emphasizing His power and perfection as God's only begotten Son, >depict Him just as clearly as distinct from and subordinate to, God. >Which view is correct? Since we believe the entire Bible, both must be >correct - and therein lies the mystery. > ...There exists however, a solution of this mystery which both makes >sense and satisfies the soul. Such an answer is found in the Baha'i view >of the station of Christ and His relationship to God. > >...1.) God is like the sun - that is, the astronomical sun, >inconceivable vast and unapproachable, its inner substance veiled by its >own blazing glory. > 2.) Christ is like the sun's reflection, appearing with perfect >fidelity in a polished and stainless mirror. > 3.) The Holy Spirit is like the sun's rays, which, having cast the >reflection within the mirror, are shed by that shed by that same >reflection over all who turn towards it. > >...This analogy reconciles many scriptures that would otherwise seem to >contradict one another. In the Bible, some passages say that to see >Christ is to see God but insists in others that no can ever see God. In >some verses it insists on His divinity, in others it is shows clearly >that he is human. These apparent contradictions vanish in light of the >Bible teaching that God is the spiritual sun, reflected in the perfect >mirror that is Christ. >...The value of the sun-and-mirror analogy lies in its concreteness. It >enables us easily to visualize a spiritual relationship that otherwise >would be painfully abstract." > > John will recognize that I have edited out much of his elaboration. I >don't think I have distorted his intention in my editing. His analogy is >still clear in what it represents. And I do not wish to suggest that his >elaboration was redundant. The purpose for my selective editing was to >focus upon an underlying motive in his thinking that I found to be >revealing. I find that it is in tune with the Baha'i perspective >dedicated to "reconciling" God and theology with "Science and the mind >of man" at whatever price in terms of spiritual mystery. This obviously >must mean dragging high spiritual mystery down into the dust of human >understanding on points that are, by definition, "mystery". It denies >the first priority of the true seeker to ultimately need holy "faith". >After all, what IS this concept of "faith" so revealed as honorable in >Scripture except trusting in God when human understanding fails us? >(Blessed are they who have not seen...). John is pleased, even excited, >with his model because it conveniently simplifies and even eliminates >what he first concedes is great mystery openly revealed in Scripture, to >the comfortable level of human intellectual understanding. > "...The value of the sun-and-mirror analogy lies in its concreteness. >It enables us easily to visualize a spiritual relationship that >otherwise would be painfully abstract." > > In other words, God's mystery is to be intellectually reduced to a >"concreteness" "easy" for human understanding to be comfortable with. >Are there no "mysteries" beyond such a reduction to human intellectual >understanding? Can God be "understood" in all aspects of His being, >nature and ability? I seem to have read much Islamically rooted Baha'i >thought that expresses God as far more "unknowable" than my Christian >based point would herein argue. Yet this odd Baha'i penchant for >reconciling religious spirituality within materialistic understanding? >One notices that then, by definition, such an outlook seeks answers and >explanations that remove any need for "faith" in "mysteries" that wise >men leave mysterious by virtue of humble recognition of their humanly >limited ability to "understand", in the face of what God tells them is >so. If one looks back on much of John's Baha'i argument against the >Trinity Godhead as revealed in Scripture (3 distinct persons in one >God), or how Jesus Christ of Nazareth could be God incarnate, we find >him arguing from the perspective of a person who MUST fit his belief >within the constraints of human understanding. Solomon confronted the >limits of his human understanding in his prayer that John cited from >1Kings. Moses similarly was unable to fathom God's truly unlimited >omnipotent ability in Numbers when God told Him that He would feed the >600,000 Jews quail. God responded to Moses' questioning mind saying, "Is >my arm shortened?", and He performed what seemed impossible to Moses. >Yet these men more often accepted the things of God that were beyond >human grasp on faith. What John cannot fit into acceptable terms of >human understanding he rejects, and rationalizes away. There is no >willingness to accept what is definitively revealed in Scripture if it >illudes his human understanding. Yet is the arm of the Lord shortened? >For John, belief in the nature of God must rest upon what can be "made" >to fit human understanding, even when it goes against what he is told in >Scripture. This is in keeping with the Baha'i mandate that, "Whatever >the intelligence of man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept. >Religion and science walk hand in hand, and any religion contrary to >science is not the truth." >(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks, pages 130-131) > Such is an outlook that tries to fit God into the mind of human >understanding. Notice that it does not say that if there is a conflict >we must independently decide which side to favor, religion or science. >It catagorically tells the seeker "any religion <<science>>> is not the truth." and that ""Whatever the intelligence of >man cannot understand, religion ought not to accept." The limiting, >determining factor is ALWAYS to be in favor of human understanding >according to this profession. It is an irreligious and unspiritual >criterion. Indeed the concept of Jesus as God incarnate, or the Trinity >nature of God is shrouded in mysteriousness that MUST illude our >understanding and will never line up with "Science". But intellectual >understanding is not preached as a prerequisite for belief in Scripture. >We are to accept what is presented by God as truth in Faith. Jesus meant >it when He said, "blessed are those who have not seen, but still >believe". He fully intended us to accept some things as mysteries >without intellectually satisfying proofs. Dramatically, let us recall >that He spoke those words AFTER His death and Resurrection, to Thomas, a >man like John who cannot believe that Jesus Resurrection is a "material >reality" unless Jesus were to make a similar personal visitation and >challenge him to touch the wounds. > > > >What better way to sum up than to reflect again on the implications from >Scripture that John himself cites; > >"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Heb. 13:8)" > >•The PERSON of JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH is proclaimed eternal. >•Thus, the person of Jesus Christ IS the Christ, not another human only >possesed by the Christ. >•The Christ is a person distinct from the Father, yet still God, being >creator of all that was created. (Colossians 1:15) >•Thus, Jesus Christ is LORD. (Phillipians 2:5) > > In my next response I will address John's Baha'i revisionist history of >the development of Christian doctrine that comprised section two of his >long letter. > > >In Christ, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:22 AM Subject: fw Re: the devil real or symbolic? fw rfranck@cyberback.com wrote in message <6ia51j$jmj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I'm interested in opinions if you think the devil is a real being or symbolic >of evil. CCF > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:24 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: the devil real or symbolic? fw Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >X-no-archive: yes >In article <6ia51j$jmj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> rfranck@cyberback.com writes: >>From: rfranck@cyberback.com >>Subject: the devil real or symbolic? >>Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:23:32 -0600 > >>I'm interested in opinions if you think the devil is a real being or symbolic >>of evil. CCF > >The devil is real, but he is far from what Hollywood is portraying. > >He is the nicest, logical, fitest, and the most convencing than anything >else. He blinds you with his talks, writing, ideas and yet, he is the most >evil of all. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:24 AM Subject: fw Re: the devil real or symbolic? fw Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >X-no-archive: yes >In article <6ia51j$jmj$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> rfranck@cyberback.com writes: >>From: rfranck@cyberback.com >>Subject: the devil real or symbolic? >>Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 10:23:32 -0600 > >>I'm interested in opinions if you think the devil is a real being or symbolic >>of evil. CCF > >The devil is real, but he is far from what Hollywood is portraying. > >He is the nicest, logical, fitest, and the most convencing than anything >else. He blinds you with his talks, writing, ideas and yet, he is the most >evil of all. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:26 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star fw -----Original Message----- From: Lars Ahlström Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 10:20 PM Subject: Re: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point star >Yes, everything is mathematic. I mean. ONE apple a day keeps the doctor >away... right? :o) > >And - according to the "Hitch-hikers guide to the galaxy", the answer of >the uttermost question " - What is everything" equal to ..... 43, I believe >it was? > >Yes. lot's of wisdom in numbers, to be gain... > >No, seriously. I personally like the 9-point star to be a symbol of the 9 >fellow humans that had so much to say, that so many found so interesting >and true, that large amount of consious-level-raising energy over time was >being released, leading us to where we are now. All other understandings >are just symthoms of human behaviour, caring for the withholding of a >present monophobic power over some masses somewhere. > >The tenth is Your own awekining in togetherness. > >Kind regards, > >Lars > > > > >Frederick Glaysher skrev i inlägg ><6i7mt7$of9@news3.newsguy.com>... >> ----Original Message----- >> From: LaAeterna >> To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 9:27 AM >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: The 9 point >star >> >> >> >Lars, although you may scoff at what you call "numerology," that is only >> >because of certain preconceived notions you may have. Don't you know >the >> >phrase (coined by physicists, and not philosophers) that "mathematics >are >> the >> >language of the universe?" Another phrase I have heard used is "God is >a >> >mathematician>" These show an understanding of the fact that when you >> begin >> >to look around you at the universe, you see a constant repetition of >> certain >> >numbers or combination of numbers. Take, for example, fractals. There >is >> a >> >very simple algebraic formula involved, but when used repeatedly, it >turns >> >into the most amazingly complex geometric pattern imaginable. When >> scientists >> >look at nature, they see fractals everywhere, and have determined that >it >> is >> >one of the underlying mathematical formulas of the universe. Or the >> Golden >> >Mean, also repeated throughout nature. >> > As it happens, the science of letters and numbers is used throughout >the >> >Holy Books and indicates nothing "magical " or "voodoo" but simply that >> there >> >are certain ordered relationships throughout the universe. Mathematics >is >> >only a language used by human beings in our attempt to understand the >> >universe. The manifestations have used the languages of humanity to >> >communicate with us, and therefore have used all the levels of >> communication, >> >including numbers and letters in symbolic language to convey subtle >> spiritual >> >messages to those who delve deeper than the surface and want more than >the >> >obvious. >> >That is all, Lars, relax. >> >As to the people calling you names and threatening you, it is obvious >they >> are >> >not Baha'is, no matter what they call themselves. A Baha'i is known by >his >> >behavior, not by what he calls himself (pc:he/she). I can call myself a >> >refrigerator until I am blue in the face, but I am not and never will be >> one. >> >If I were you, I would give these idiots none of my time and ignore >them, >> they >> >are not worth bothering with. >> >Nancy >> >---- >> >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >-- >> >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > >> >> >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:28 AM Subject: fw Re: Satan fw darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6i82e1$tpb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Cindi, > Find the passage in the Bible where Jesus says to Peter, "Get thee behind me >Satan!" when Peter suggested to Jesus that He avoid be arrested. It was the >mission of Jesus to die "to sanctify the soul of the sinner" (Gleanings). >Here, Jesus calls Peter "Satan" because Jesus knows that it is Peter's >lower-self that is speaking. > If you want your Christian friend to believe in Baha'u'llah, then I 'highly' >recommend the following books for you to give her: >1) Thief in the Night (by William Sears) >2) He Cometh With Clouds (by Gary Matthews) > The first book costs about $6, and the second one $22. I suggest the first >first, and the second second. Both are available in any Baha'i Bookstore, or >by calling "Baha'i Booksource International" in Los Angeles. >Darrick Evenson > > >In article <6i4qs4$bkd$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1, > rfranck@cyberback.com wrote: > >> From my understanding of the Bahai Faith, Satan is symbolic of evil, not a >> being. While I appreciate the responses, what I'm looking for is >Bible >> Scriptures about Satan, since the Bible is the only source of knowledge my >> Christian sister will accept. Thanks. Cindi >> >> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:28 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: The 9 point star fw -----Original Message----- From: Lars Ahlström Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 9:47 PM Subject: Re: The 9 point star > >> >The truth is witin. Not without. >> >> It is in both, IMHO (=in my humble opinion), and in both cases comes >> from God. >> > >Well it's a say. The truth is within (theself) and not without (without >anything, the truth f ex)... > > >> Hope this helps... > >Yeah, I found that Bahai's can be touchy about the ninth prophet's name :o) > >In my world, we are all awakening slowly into the (...10th if You like) >superbeing of God. Without offending the earlier isolated prophets who came >to lit the light, we can now identify ourself with whomever. I M U & U M I >= I am You and You am I. That is the simple way to think, and base our >mutual respect upon. Who would like to offend himself? So, I AM Bahaullah. >When I am inspired by the holy ghost and write down some beautiful >observations of divine relations. Or Jesus, when I help the tired man that >fell on the street, etc. There is only one spirit in the universe, and we >are the materialization of it. And we have to learn that we all bleed the >same, before we can develop into the common higher life. > >If I choose a nickname like that, I just learn thing, as You saw. How far >people has to go, for example, until the light will get through their eyes. > > >Thanks for the kind input, Donald. > >Kind regards, > >Lars. > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:29 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims fw -----Original Message----- From: Stephen M. Dodd Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,misc.misc,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture .iranian Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 12:49 AM Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims > >Jahangir Darvish wrote in message <6i8aq5$h8g$1@nswpull.telstra.net>... >>Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >>>X-no-archive: yes >>>In article <3544C701.ED5AE78B@haystack.mit.edu> Mike Buonsanto >> writes: >>>>From: Mike Buonsanto >>> >>>>Now Baha'u'llah specifically instructed His followers to spread >>>>their religion by words only, not by the sword. Baha'u'llah >>> >>>You forgot that the pen, is much sharper than sword!! >> >> >>I am sure when Iran was captured by the Muslim Arabs and were forced to >>become Muslims, Iranians wished the Arabs would use their pens rather than >>their swords! ;-) > >History reports that the Persian Empire's leadership won the battle against >a much smaller and poorly equiped desert party of little strength but then >ran away anyway. > >Omar > >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims -----Original Message----- From: Roger Reini Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, April 30, 1998 10:11 AM Subject: Re: [Bahaism]: Differences in Belief-Saying "Assalamu Aleikum" to Non-Muslims >On Wed, 29 Apr 1998 15:30:50 GMT, Massoud.Ajami@sdsu.eduDELETE >(Massoud Ajami) wrote: > >> >>BTW, I voted yes on the NG. > >So did many Baha'is, FYI. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:31 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic fw Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3547B59D.418C@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Two quick notes re my posting: > >1) >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: >> > Karosh Soltani wrote in a posting critical of the Baha'i faith): > >Apologies to Kavosh for misspelling his name. For some reason it came >through with an "r" instead of a "v" and I replicated the error >elsewhere in the message. I am sorry for the mistake. > >2) The content of a range of recent Usenet postings from a few >individuals opposed to the Baha'i religion -- from nonsensical trolls to >references such as the one in Kavosh's posting to which I responded -- >serve to illustrate the atmosphere of hostility that Baha'is in some >places and situations must endure. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:31 AM Subject: fw Re: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic fw Donald Zhang Osborn wrote in message <3547B59D.418C@pilot.msuNOSPAM.edu>... >Two quick notes re my posting: > >1) >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: >> > Karosh Soltani wrote in a posting critical of the Baha'i faith): > >Apologies to Kavosh for misspelling his name. For some reason it came >through with an "r" instead of a "v" and I replicated the error >elsewhere in the message. I am sorry for the mistake. > >2) The content of a range of recent Usenet postings from a few >individuals opposed to the Baha'i religion -- from nonsensical trolls to >references such as the one in Kavosh's posting to which I responded -- >serve to illustrate the atmosphere of hostility that Baha'is in some >places and situations must endure. > >DZO ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:33 AM Subject: fw Re: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic fw Kavosh Soltani wrote in message <354924FE.5A862899@erols.com>... >Hello. > >Donald Zhang Osborn wrote: >> Apologies to Kavosh for misspelling his name. For some >> reason it came through with an "r" instead of a "v" and >> I replicated the error elsewhere in the message. I am >> sorry for the mistake. > >No problem! > >> The content of a range of recent Usenet postings from a >> few individuals opposed to the Baha'i religion -- from >> nonsensical trolls to references such as the one in >> Kavosh's posting to which I responded -- serve to >> illustrate the atmosphere of hostility that Baha'is in >> some places and situations must endure. > >Perhaps you missed what started all of this? It began when >some Bahais accussed Muslims of not understanding Islam and >being disobedient to the Creator by rejecting Bahaullah... > >All the detailed postings on these newsgroups were responces >to the objections raised by Bahais. I hate to say it, but they >started it and, now that the truth has been delivered, they >will have no excuse in the sight of Allah for following Bahaism... > >As a side issue, If you like to really get to the bottom of >the alleged "hostility" faced by Bahais in some corners of the >world, you need to know: > > 1. No one likes clear dishonesty. Many Muslims take > their religion seriously and do not appreciate it > when non-Muslims knowingly engage in spreading > falsehood against Islam. We see it as the greatest > disservice against humanity, since those who are > guided away from true teachings of Allah will be > the biggest loosers in the hereafter. We love > our fellow men and want for them what we want for > ourselves; but, this demands that an accurate > picture of Islam be shown to non-Muslims. Everyone > is to be absolutely free to follow whatever religion > they want; they just should receive a correct picture > of Islamic teaching. > > In many Islamic countries there are laws enforcing > this doctrine of Islam. Those who break the law > will be punished by the law... What a minority > who hates a law may view as "abuse", the majority > sees as justice and implementation of the laws... > > 2. When approaching Muslims, Missionary Bahais use the > same kind of misrepresentation of facts we have seen > on this forum. The problem is that they often approach > common and unlearned people hoping for better result. > The danger in this is that the people they approach are > also easier offended and are more likely to resort to > violence... > > 3. In places like Iran, some Bahais for a long time > held responsible goverment position (even in secrete > service) and managed to make a lot of enemies among > the public for the strategies brought back from the > Israelie Massad or their preferential treatment of > other Bahais (double-standard). I suspect some people > might have seen this time as the time to get-even... > > I don't agree with it; but, I understand human nature... > >====================================================================== > "Whoever receives guidance, receives it for his own benefit; > whoever goes astray does so to his own loss. No bearer of > burdens can bear the burden of another, nor would We visit > with Our Wrath until We had sent a Messenger" > (Holy Quran, Al-Isra, 17:15) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:43 AM To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: Re: test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber It seems to be working fine now. Thanks again. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, April 29, 1998 1:37 PM Subject: Re: test: bahai-faith@makelist.com: would a non-subscriber >This is a test reply to talisman, with a "cc" to bahai-faith@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:11 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John Noland's long letter 1 of 3 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Dale Grider wrote in message <354B1CC5.44F3@bellsouth.net>... >This letter responds to part two of John Noland's long letter to me, >and the newsgroup. This section was presented as a "historical" overview >of the development of Christian doctrine. John had alluded earlier to >his opinion that Trinitarian doctrine and that of Jesus' incarnate deity >was only a non scriptural aberration of Scripture by later Christian >authorities. I had disagreed, saying that the "historical origins of >Christology" amounted to the Church formalizing what was already >inherent in Scripture as, over time,various heresies attempted to >challenge and pervert those original inherent intentions of >Scripture.The Church's formalizing of doctrine, I argued, arose and >developed to formally investigate and protect Scripture's doctrinal >intentions and to give answer to, and CORRECT perversion that impinged >upon the early Church. John formally disagrees with me in detail in a 23 >page summary of what he describes as a definitive look at early church >history and its development of Christian doctrine. > The first thing I want to quote John on from his letter is his >statement that, > >"...the first place to look in answering these questions (Trinitarian >doctrine and Christology) is the apostles themselves as described in >Scripture. This is, however, problematic. Dale interprets Scripture one >way and I interpret it another. Then we each say to one another "My >interpretation is right and yours is wrong" or "I interpret Scripture as >the apostles intended and you just twist and pervert it to serve your >own >purposes". We each have our own justification for interpreting >Scripture the way we do." > > But revealingly John also says, > >"There are certain facts that we can establish about the apostles that >are indisputable. >-They were apparently unanimous in believing that Christ would soon >return to establish the Kingdom of Heaven on earth. >-The belief in the Messianic mission, bodily resurrection of Christ, and >earthly return of Christ formed their basic faith." > > > Now before commenting on what it is about these quotes from John's >opening statements that strikes me as illogically skewed, I want to >quote him from the first section of his long letter where he said, > >"We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. >With Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any >dogma or doctrine associated with that religion and search for truth >directly from Scripture." > > Now if you go back to the immediate quotes I pulled from John's opening >of the second section of his letter we find a disturbing problem. John >says that it is "indisputable" that the Apostolic authors of the New >Testament thought that, "Christ would soon return to establish the >Kingdom of Heaven on earth." I assume this to mean that John feels they >erroneously thought Christ would return within their own earthly >lifetimes. This is a disputable opinion, not fact. Certainly his >additional comment that they held fast the belief that the, ..."bodily >resurrection of Christ, and earthly return of Christ formed their basic >faith." has him, as a Baha'i, portraying them as misguided and in error >on the basic spiritual truths concerning Jesus and the "Christ". Thus, >it is "indisputable" that, as a Baha'i who has argued against what he >concedes they genuinely intended, he declares their writing to be >corrupted with human error and a profound lack of inspiration. We must >observe that if this were true it would caste grave doubts upon Jesus' >own inspiration and wisdom as well since He directly commissioned them >to "spread the good news" of Jesus Gospel (No less than Baha'is believe >Abdul Baha was directly commissioned to infallible authority by >Baha'u'llah). Jesus utterly left the written story of His entire life >and Mission in their hands. At the very outset of John's history he >makes the revealingly fatal error of disparaging the Apostles accuracy >and direct inspiration in what they wrote. He fails to take the >implications of this line of thought back one step further to Jesus >Himself as I have done. > If John believes that the Bible is the "source" to which we must go to >find the answers, and he believes that we must, "ignore any dogma or >doctrine associated with that religion and search for truth directly >from Scripture.", and He believes that the men who wrote it indisputably >believed that the, "bodily resurrection of Christ, and earthly return of >Christ formed their basic faith.", then John needs to rethink his faith >and the breach in logic with which he has made mutually exclusive and >contradictory professions. We will see that John has tainted the rest of >his church history as well, not just the New Testament's reliability and >inspiration. But from the outset, I wanted to point out that the >approach he must take to do so, contradicts his own assertation that >Scripture itself must guide our thinking. His intention was to say that >we must ignore what he argues to be Christian aberration of Scripture's >intended Message. Unfortunately, to build that argument of alleged >Christian corruption, he must begin by going all the way back and >discounting as falsehood what he himself describes as the inarguable >intentions of the Apostles...who wrote the New Testament of the Bible, >the source, the Word of God. We will discover momentarily that the >earliest Church fathers also had and defended the same literal Apostolic >intentions with respect to Jesus and the nature of God even as I do in >discussion with John. > So John is correct when he says that, >"Dale interprets Scripture one way and I interpret it another. Then we >each say to one another "My interpretation is right and yours is wrong" >or "I interpret Scripture as the apostles intended and you just twist >and pervert it to serve your own purposes"." > > I interpret Scripture from the viewpoint that John had formerly seemed >to express, that it is the fully inspired Word of God, the undisputable >"source". Yes, I interpret Scriptures "as the Apostles intended". John, >on the other hand, now presents an outlook that reveals that he >interprets Scripture from the viewpoint of its being an uninspired human >document filled with spiritual error and written by misguided men who >completely missed what Jesus was all about. Thus, yes, I must not only >point out that John contradicts his earlier profession, but must take >issue with his presently expressed approach to viewing Scripture. His >must be a fundamentally "wrong" viewpoint from which to attempt any >interpretation of Scripture. Is it the inspired source or not? John >can't seem to decide. But if he sides with Scripture as he earlier said >(the "source" beyond which other "dogmas" must be "ignored") then he >needs to take a long hard look at his accurate observation that, ""There >are certain facts that we can establish about the apostles that are >indisputable...-The belief in the Messianic mission, bodily resurrection >of Christ, and earthly return of Christ formed their basic faith." > >John says, > >"The Jews accused the Christians of treason and, cowardice, Christians >hailed the destruction of the Temple by Titus. Mutual hatred inflamed >the two faiths. (The Gospel of St. John is believed to have been written >after this. This explains the harsh attitude towards Judaism when >compared to that found in the synoptic Gospels)." > > So we see that John's "history" continues to paint the motivation and >shaping forces behind the very writing of Holy Scripture according to >utterly unspiritual and worldly motives. He reasons that the tone in >John's Gospel was a reflection of worldly adversity and evil mutual >hatred between to rival religious groups. If this were true John, what >kind of inspired "source" (as you said) would this represent? Why would >Scripture be any more of a source than any other humanly corrupted >writings? Again, to develop the argument he does, John has to caste >Scripture itself as being corrupt, and thus contradicts the very premise >of his own argument, that we must go to Scripture, the "source", to find >the truth and discover Christinity's corruption of truth. John doesn't >seem to recognize that from the outset what he is arguing is that the >Apostles (who wrote the source) had a non Baha'i outlook! > > >John says, > >"In attempting to determine the beliefs or intentions of the apostles, >it would be instructive to look at the beliefs of succeeding generations >of Christians and see what the apostles taught them about the >relationship between the Father and the Son. So, if in fact the apostles >believed Jesus to be God the Son, as part of a triune God, we should >expect to see this belief spoken of or taught in some form by the >apostles' disciples." > >John goes on in his history, > >"The apostles' preoccupation with doctrinal purity in their later >writings is striking.They explicitly and repeatedly instructed their >younger members and assistants to preserve the faith once delivered and >remove from their fellowships, or otherwise avoid, those who brought in >damnable heresies (Acts 20:29-30; 2 Timothy 3:13-4:5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 >John 2:18-23; 4:1-3; 2 John 7-11; Jude). > >John continues, > >...So, if the belief in a triune God and Jesus as an equal part of the >Godhead was one of the doctrines to be preserved, we should see a >reflection of that in the writings of the next generation of leaders >whose job it was to carry out this duty." > > John then lists Post-Apostolic Fathers such as Barnabas (not the >Barnabas of Acts); Clement of Rome, who was Peter's companion in >Palestine and Syria; Hermas; Ignatius of Antioch; Papias of Hierapolis; >Polycarp of Smyrna; and the author of the epistle to Diogenetus. > > Of them he comments, > > "They do not reflect an effort to systematize - or even analyze, it >seems - Christians' beliefs about the nature of God. Nevertheless there >are scattered references from these men that bear on the subject. The >most important feature to note in the writings of the Post-Apostolic >Fathers is that all the direct references to the relationship between >the Father and the Son show that they taught a subordination of the Son >to the Father and nowhere in the writings we have from this period is >God spoken of as triune. Nowhere are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit >spoken of as one being. And, of course, nowhere does the term Trinity >appear. About these points there is little dispute among church >historians. As a last resort some >have suggested that the Post-Apostolic Fathers did understand God as >triune, but we just don't have a record of it." > > Now inherent in this is an assumption that the "doctrine" of the >Trinity is not implicit in the earliest expression of Christianity >simply because the same terminology was not in use. ("...nowhere does >the term Trinity appear"). This will be shown a false assumption. "A >rose (A doctrine) by any other name" ...is still the same. It is the >concepts behind the terminology that alone count. If we find that the >Church Fathers considered Jesus, the Christ, to be God incarnate, then >we already have the root doctrine of God's multi person nature assumed >in their theology. Also, as I earlier had shared with John, the attempt >to "analyze" or "systematize" doctrinal proclamations on the nature of >God only developed as heresies made formalization Scripture's intentions >necessary. They were rendered from what was already inherent in the >Scripture. One does not expect to find it's formalization before the >heresies confronted the Church. Keep in mind that this "history" John >presents only covers a period of a few hundred years. Considering the >levels of communication and veritable lack of information technology >compared to today, this is a very short period for so many heretical >considerations as presented themselves to have been met and considered >and formally addressed by the Church. > It needs to also be brought out that John's assumptions are highly >misleading when he says that, > >"The most important feature to note in the writings of the >Post-Apostolic Fathers is that all the direct references to the >relationship between the Father and the Son show that they taught a >subordination of the Son to the Father..." . The issue here is whether >the Son is "God". The issue of authority within the Godhead's persons is >a totally separate issue. Christian doctrine (doubtlessly used in a >selectively biased fashion by John or his source) readily agrees that >the Son, especially in His Messianic incarnation, assumed a human aspect >that, in perfection, subordinated Himself to the Father. However, it is >solidly Scriptural to also observe that the Father, Son, and Spirit >voluntarily and in perfect agreement assume different authorities at >different times. We must notice in this respect that the Father gives >full authority to the Son to Judge. And it is "by" the Son that all that >has been created exists. The Son says that He gives eternal life "to >whom He is pleased to give it". John's biased perspective is selectively >imbalanced in terms of the Scriptural portrayal of the Son's station and >authority. > But let us look at some primary sources. John feels that there is >"little doubt among church historians" that the post apostolic Church >fathers had no concept of the Trinitarian concept of God as having >multiple persons. Let's look at just what they said. > >Ignatius (30-107 AD) > >A. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 1:1 "...according to the >will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our God". >B. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 2:7 > "There is one physician, both fleshly and spiritual; made and not >made; God incarnate..." > >C. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:9 > "For our God Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, >conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy >Ghost." >D. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13 > "...God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of >eternal life." > >Polycarp (69-155 AD) > > The Epistle of Polycarp to the Church at Philippi, 12 > "Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal >High Priest Himself, the God Jesus Christ, build you up in the faith..." > > > We can plainly see that if we go directly to the primary sources, the >concept of Jesus as God solidly in place in the early church father's >theology. This is not to say that creeds or formal proclamations had yet >been developed. For they only formally developed as a response to >heresy, as I had formerly said. However I think the preceding citations >settle the issue. The Apostles had an outlook other than the Baha'i >viewpoint (as John himself noted in terms of Jesus' Resurrection). As >opposed to John's faulty claim we find that the Apostolic Fathers of the >next generation were in complete support of Jesus' incarnate deity and >thus necessarily familiar with the Trinity(multiple person nature) >concept of God's nature. In this they are in concert with the Christian >doctrines of His deity and the Trinity of today's recognized Christian >doctrine. As I said earlier, no specific mention of the term "Trinity", >or even formal observation of the concept itself need have been >mentioned by them for John's argument to be rendered invalid. In that >they firmly preached the full deity of the Son, distinct from the >Father, we see that the Baha'i "oneness" concept of God's nature would >have been seen as utterly anti scriptural by them even as it is by >contemporary Christians, and both for the same reason. Such a "oneness" >concept is against the original Apostolic Scriptural intentions even as >John recognizes that the Baha'i symbolic redefining of Jesus' >Resurrection is. > The argument for the Spirit as a "person" is also inarguable from the >Scripture. Once again, we recall that this was to be John's "source" >beyond which anything else is to be ultimately ignored. > Also, keep in mind that John himself earlier assumed that we could >discover evidence of the original Scriptural intention from what the >Apostolic writers of the Scripture themselves taught this first >generation of Post Apostolic Church Fathers. Recall John's comment, > >"..So, if the belief in a triune God and Jesus as an equal part of the >Godhead was one of the doctrines to be preserved, we should see a >reflection of that in the writings of the next generation of leaders >whose job it was to carry out this duty." > > John's own observation, when primary sources are investigated, thus >leads to the inevitable conclusion that the Apostolic writers themselves >held that Jesus was God the Son and thus had a concept of a multi person >nature of God. > > The Holy Spirit is clearly revealed in Scripture as the third person in >the Trinity. He is fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, >has a will, and can speak. He is alive. He is a person. He is not >particularly visible in the Bible because His ministry is to bear >witness of Jesus (John 15:26). > Some cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses say that the Holy Spirit is >nothing more than a force. This seems to be John's outlook as expressed >in his analogy in which he describes the Spirit as, > >"The Holy Spirit is like the sun's rays, which, having cast the >reflection within the mirror, are shed by that same reflection over all >who turn towards it... > ...In the Bible, some passages say that to see Christ is to see God but >insists in others that no can ever see God. In some verses it insists on >His divinity, in others it is shows clearly that he is human. These >apparent contradictions vanish in light of the Bible teaching that God >is the spiritual sun, reflected in the perfect mirror that is Christ." > > We see that John calls the Spirit an "it" and when he concludes his >reflection of the analogy He specifically leaves out mention of the >Spirit as a distinct "person", telling us instead that, "God is the >spiritual sun, reflected in the perfect mirror that is Christ." Thus, >the implicit assumption that I have to draw is that he considers the >Spirit to only be some "force" that emanates from the person of the >Father, to the person of the Son, the "Christ". As detailed in my former >response to part one of John's letter, we can already see that John is >beginning to assume things that will inevitably lead the reader of >Scripture to reject "oneness" theology. Even if John argues against the >Spirit as a person (which he cannot do without ignoring very specific >Scripture) he already concedes that the Son is a distinct person, the >Christ person, who Scripture reveals as absolutely being God. Even John >argues this point. Listen to his own descriptors of the Christ from part >one of his letter. John says of the Christ, > >"Throughout eternity there has always been, and will ever be, only one >Christ - unique, unchanging, indivisible, peerless and incomparable. His >greatness is infinitely beyond human comprehension." > > John, you are describing God, only you're not speaking of the Father, >you're talking about the Christ! > > > If the Holy Spirit were merely a force, then He could not speak (Acts >13:2); He could not be grieved (Eph. 4:30); and He would not have a will >(1 Cor. 12:11). > The truth is that the Holy Spirit is a person the same as the >Father >and the Son are within the Trinity. > >But let us continue with John's "history". He says, > >" ...we should at least find a clear expression of Trinitarianism or >"the deity of Christ" in the next generation of leaders. Once again, we >do not." > > But obviously at this point, John's whole argument has crumbled. We >have already seen that even by the first generation of post Apostolic >Church Fathers, the concept of multiple persons in the godhead was >recognized. This is solidly based in the "clear expression" just shared >in what those earliest Christian leaders wrote of Jesus Christ's >absolute incarnate deity. John (or his faulty secondary source) was >wrong about the Post Apostolic Father's views. Thus, he is obviously >wrong in his whole basic premise that Trinitarian doctrine and the deity >of Jesus were "man made" developments that were not present in the >earliest Church and only appeared later as unbiblical aberrations. The >primary sources clearly show that traditional Christian concepts >prevailed concerning the multiplicity of persons in the Godhead and >Jesus as being God, and that, specifically in accordance with the >direct teaching of the Apostolic writers of the New Testament of the >Bible (the "source" John). What then of John's identical claim with >respect to the next generation of Church leaders? > >Justin Martyr (110-166 AD) > >Dialogue With Trypho, 34 >"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord..." > > >Dialogue With Trypho, 48 > > "...He preexisted as the Son of the Creator of things, being God, and >that He was born a man by the Virgin." > >First Apology, 63 > "...the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God >and is God." > >5. Irenaeus (120-202 AD) > >A. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.10.1 > "In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and >King..." > >B. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3.19.1-2 > > "...He is Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and >Only Begotten and Incarnate Word....The Scriptures would not have borne >witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone else, He were >mere man." > >Athenagoras (about 177 AD) > > Intercession on Behalf of the Saints, 10 > "... God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit..." > > Melito of Sardis (died about 190 AD) > >Guide, 13 > "The activities of Christ after His baptism, and >especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of >the Deity hidden in the flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man...He >concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing >before the ages." > > > >Origin (185-254) > > Fundamental Doctrines 1. pref. 2-4; 1.2.1; 4.4.1 > >"Although He was God, He took flesh; and having been made man, He >remained what He was, God". > > Notice that these citations come largely from documents that were >general "apologies" many even being labeled specifically as being >written to face heresies that impinged upon the Church. Once again, >John's bold proclamation that the Apologists were perverting the >Scripture by appeasing Helenistic (pagan) thought while they suppressed >the original intentions of the Christian community's doctrinal outlook >is simply wrong. At this point in his argument, statements like the >following are very revealing of the overall invalidity of John's false >history. For the further he goes beyond the earliest mistakes in it, the >more his argument is based upon and rooted in those earlier false >assumptions. He confidently proclaims things like, > >"In this period (of the Apologists) we do see critical first steps made >in the development of Trinitarian expression. The first was made by a >man named Athenagoras..." > > But I submit that the first "critical step" from which the >formalization of Trinitian doctrine must inexorably follow, is >establishing the incarnate deity of the Son's person, distinct from >another person, the Father, both as "God" in unity of being. This, as >definitively shown, WAS firmly in place at EVERY stage of development in >statements that are actually, as we have just seen from both the >Patristic and Apologist periods, some of the boldest proclamations of >Jesus incarnate deity from ANY period. > > >John says, > >"As we will see, it was left to later generations of thinkers to develop >the notion of >triunity as it has come down today through the Trinity doctrine." > > As the reader can tell by now, I have made my point (or I should say >the early church fathers have made God's point). I could go through the >rest of John's false history and continue to point out the basic flaw in >John's thesis, over and over, as he goes further and further out on this >limb. The concepts in modern Trinitarian doctrine are inherent in >Scripture. They are absolutely inherent in the assumed understanding the >earliest generation (and all subsequent generations) of post Apostolic >Church Fathers had concerning the incarnate deity (not just some human >"divinity") of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. > I want to point out another aspect in how John has wrongly presumed a >worldly motivation and "latter only" appearance for an aspect of >Christian apologetics that can be shown to be solidly biblical in its >inception. John argues that what he calls the "Hellenization" of >Christian thought was some unbiblical patronizing of secular, pagan >philosophy. As part of his argument against Trinitarian doctrine and >Jesus' incarnate deity as being inherent in Scripture and every >generation of Church Fathers, John paints a picture of the Apologists >bitterly suppressing the earliest expressions of Christian belief in >favor of patronizing "Hellenistic" thought. But when we consider the >former quotes I cited by them we see that this is wrong. What John >observes, and then twists, is that they, like Paul himself, recognized >the need to argue Natural Theology from the perspective of General >Revelation to those not yet able to directly receive a Revealed Theology >from the perspective of Special Revelation (the Bible). We see from the >citations I quoted that their final aim was not to conform Christian >theology to a form acceptable to secular thought. It was to shepherd >lost souls to the Lamb of God, God the Son, Jesus Christ. > Natural Theology, as a starting point in Christian apologetics is >solidly Biblical and Paul depended on it as do the Old Testament >writers. It is a perspective that tells us that inherent in nature lies >evidence of God's invisible spiritual qualities. (Romans 1:1-3). It >tells us that morality is not relative, but absolute, and that even >those who do not have the formal Law (the Bible) but do the Law from the >inherent basis of their hearts and conscience, are responding to the >General Revelation inherent within the Creation, "they show that the >demands of the Law are written in their hearts". (Romans 2:14). The >Psalmist says, "The Heavens declare the Glory of God, and the firmament >proclaims his handiwork." (Psalm 19:2-3) Paul's apologetic to the >Epicurean and Stoic Greek philosophers at the Areopagus in Athens was no >more "Helenization" than the later Church Fathers whose likewise appeal >to Natural Theology and God's General Revelation was often a necessary >starting point within a Christian world seeking to evangelize paganism. >That evangelism, again as shown in the primary sources, was absolutely >to lead people to Special Revelation, the Bible, with the firm intention >of preaching the incarnate deity of Jesus and, thus, the Trinitarian >multiplicity of persons within the Godhead. > It seems odd that John spent so much time on Arius and the heresy of >Arianism. Such a consideration can only hope to bolster my claim that >the formalization of Church doctrine was a natural response to heresies >that threatened the inherent concepts in Scripture. John says of Arius, > > >"...using a very formal argument, he attacked the doctrine, put forward >by Origen and Bishop Alexander, of the 'contemporaneity' of the >preexistent Logos with the Father. What caused most offense was the >quote 'There was once a time, when he (the Son) was not'. For Arius, the >Son is certainly there 'before all time', but he is not uncreated, he is >not eternal, since he has been created by the eternal God as God's >foremost and most important creature." > > But, what we really see, is that Arius not only went against the >teachings of Origen. But, as I earlier quoted from primary sources, he >went against those same Scriptural concepts equally held by the earliest >Post Apostolic writers in terms of Jesus' station who, they agreed, was >that of being God. As heresies like Arianism impinged upon the Church's >longstanding recognition of the Station of Jesus, Church Fathers >formalized beliefs and developed creeds for doctrines that had already >been held and proclaimed generally from the beginning. > >Most of the rest of John's "history" alludes to how Church Fathers dealt >with the Arian heresy and had to consider all of the ways in which it >might slip in through the back door, so to speak. Of course, John paints >this entire development as if it consisted of the work of utterly >unspiritual men. Or at best , men with worldly ulterior motives whose >main aim was to secure and hold temporal power, eliminate opposing >viewpoints simply because they were in competition with their own >prevailing (and unbiblical) viewpoint, and pacify the pagan world as >best they could. > In light of what I have shared in this letter it is amazing to have >heard John say, > >"I've avoided giving this history a Baha'i slant. All of the information >was obtained from >readily available books by Christian authors. The conclusions reached at >various points were arrived at by the authors of the books I >researched." > > For his is a blatant Baha'i historical revisionism whose false >portrayal of the alleged "development" of Trinitarian doctrine as a >latter aberration of Scripture has already been uncovered by the >"inarguable" evidence of primary sources. As I observed in my first >letter in this series of three responding to John's long letter, one can >find many "Christian" authors who are, in fact, wrong secondary sources. >There are indeed liberal theologians who hang out a Christian shingle, >and preach heresy based upon misinformation and creative interpretation. >John has evidently found some. For his statements and the whole thesis >of his argument don't match the facts. Much as John said that the Bible >itself has to be the source, primary sources must also be used if one is >going to make assumptions about what anyone thought or intended. >Obviously John has not done so with respect to the Church Father's >doctrinal outlook on the deity of Jesus and the nature of God. > > >"...according to the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ our God"., > >Dale >(and Ignatius (30-107 AD) from The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians >1:1) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:12 AM Subject: fw Re: John Noland's long letter 1 of 3 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com John Noland wrote in message ... >>There is a serious problem within this statement that needs to be >>pointed out. John concedes that our differences lie in that >>Christians believe Jesus to be God but Baha'is don't. He concedes >>that while Christians believe that the "person" of Jesus Christ of >>Nazareth is specifically THE singular identity of "the Christ", >>Baha'is profess a generic Christ Spirit that many different persons >>can possess. Thus, it is an impossible statement for him to say that, >>"Our views on the station of Christ are not that far apart ... they >>are nearly identical.", or for him to speak of these differences as >>being "subtle". They are obviously dramatic differences, by >>definition, with fundamentally different implications. > >I'll stand by my statement. The difference in our views on this issue are not that far >apart and the differences are subtle. You say that Jesus Christ was "fully man". A >statement I agree with one hundred percent. Jesus was born, was subject to growth, >experienced normal human conditions and emotions. He had a soul, just like you and I, only >unlike ours, his soul was perfect and stainless. You also say that He was "fully God". >Again, a statement I agree with. The Baha'i view says that Jesus reflected all of the >attributes and perfections of God through His perfect and stainless soul, so He could >legitimately claim to be God. The specific mechanics of this "reflecting" process are >unknown to me. Some people say it's analogous to a radio or TV receiving a signal. That's >a sensible explanation, but that doesn't make it correct. The Baha'i Writings don't >explain this as far as I know, so any answer is in essence a guess. You make the >comparison to demon possession. I don't pretend to know how demon possession works, so >this analogy just replaces one mystery with another. You believe that the one Godhead is >made up of three distinct personalities, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy >Spirit. You believe that Jesus was God the Son incarnate. You don't understand how power >is transferred through the Godhead, yet you can make the definitive statement that God the >Son is equal to God the Father, even though the Bible definitively tells us that the Son >is subject to the Will of the Father. Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I" and "I >will pray the Father" and "I go to the Father" and many, many others that illustrate this >point. You point out that I'm being one-sided, by only referring to the statements Jesus >made as a man. I disagree. I know there are places that show Jesus to be equal with God, >but these instances speak to our relationship with Christ and with God, not with Christ's >relationship to the Father. In relationship to us mere humans Christ could rightly be >called God. In relationship to God the Father, Christ is subordinate. When you read these >verses in the Bible, you are bound by a preconceived conceptual framework. You judge the >character of these things based on that bias. To my knowledge, nowhere do the Gospels say, >Jesus said this or that speaking as a man and in other places said He spoke as God. You >personally make this determination, not Scripture. > >You stated that I illogically placed limits on what God can and can't do. I believe God is >infinite. I believe God is an omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful, all-seeing, >all-knowing spirit. I believe that He exists outide of time and space as we know it and >that he can't be found to reside in any given "place". Not in heaven or any other place. >He is both everywhere and nowhere at the same time. I believe that a God that could fully >incarnate Himself would no longer be God. You believe that God is made up of three >distinct personalities. You don't understand how this works, but again you make a >definitive statement that "all of God's fullness" was contained within Jesus of Nazareth. >Excuse me if I say I'm baffled by this. Does this mean that one hundred percent of God's >infinite essence was contained within Jesus of Nazareth? Or just the God the Son part? >What percentage of the Godhead does God the Son comprise? What is one hundred percent of >infinity? You see, I'm not placing limits on God, God may very well be able to incarnate >Himself, but He would no longer be infinite or "both everywhere and nowhere" if He did. >And thus He would no longer be God. > >Can the Baha'i belief that Jesus reflected the attributes and perfections of God be found >explicitly stated in the Bible? Yes. Can the Baha'i belief that Jesus and the Christ >Spirit (or the Word) are seperate entities be found explicitly stated in the Bible? Again, >Yes. Can these beliefs be discredited from the Bible? No, they certainly cannot. Is it not >possible that the Divine Reflection analogy has the power to enhance our knowledge of what >the Bible is saying? In my case the answer is absolutely! I don't understand why you would >make the fact that this excites me a source of derision. > >Was Moses a sinner? I don't think so. Even when we look upon the fact that Moses killed a >man, Moses only broke the law of the Pharoah, and not the Law of God. It's obvious that >God found Moses to have acted properly. You state that you believe Moses to be a sinner >based on the following passages: > >“There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be >gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor >and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the >presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and >because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites.” > >“But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me enough to honor me >as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not bring this community into the land I >give them." > >You interpret these passages to mean that at the waters of Meribah, Moses trespassed >against God by not sanctifying God among the children of Israel and, consequently, was not >allowed to enter the Promised Land. But in Some Answered Questions Abdu'l Baha explains >that God is here addressing Moses not as an individual but in His capacity of >representative of His people. Though outwarldy directed at Moses, the rebuke is really >intended for the children of Israel. (SAQ 167) > >The Old Testament accounts of the episode in question bear out Abdu'l Baha's statement. >Exodus 17 relates that the children of Israel, desperate for water in the desert, >'murmured against Moses' and 'tempted the Lord, saying, Is the Lord among us, or not?' God >instructed Moses to strike the rock in Horeb with His rod, promising that water would gush >forth: > >So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the place Massah >[literally, testing] and Meribah [literally, quarrelling] because the Israelites >quarrelled and because they tested the Lord... (Ex. 17:6-7) > >Here Moses is completely obedient; it is the people who rebel by quarrelling and testing >God. The incident is repeated at Kadesh, where Moses is commanded to 'Take the rod...and >speak ye unto the rock before their eyes; and it shall give forth his water...And Moses >took the rod before the Lord, as he commanded him.' Denouncing the Israelites as 'ye >rebels', Moses 'lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice, and water >came out abundantly...' (Num 20:8-11). Some people suggest that Moses transgressed when He >'smote' the rock instead of speaking to it. However, the fact that Moses, wielding the rod >'as [God] commanded him', actually obtained water, suggests that God intended for Moses to >'speak' to the rock through the rod by striking it. Moses' own statement that the 'rebels' >in this instance were the people is confirmed in verse 13: 'This is the water of Meribah, >because the children of Israel strove with the Lord...' >It is on this occasion (verse 12) that God announces His intention to punish Moses and >Aaron for the rebellion: 'Because ye believed not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the >children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I >have given them.' In and of itself, this passage leaves the impression that Moses was at >fault. Later, however, recalling how fervently He sought permission to enter the Promised >Land, Moses explains the reality: 'The Lord was wroth with me <>, and >would not hear me..." (Deut. 3:26). It was on account of His followers' sins - not His >own - that Moses suffered. As the surrogate for His people, He took upon Himself the >burden of their guilt, thus suffering punishment in their place and shielding them from >the wrath of God. > >Viewed in this light, Moses' actions not only are blameless but distincly Christlike. His >role in this drama provides a clear precedent for the Christian doctrine of vicarious >atonement. It anticipates and prefigures the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins >of all humanity. > >The obedience of Moses as a completely faithful sevant is strongly affirmed by God when >His siblings, Miriam and Aaron, criticize Him 'Because of the Ethiopian woman he had >married' (Num. 12:1). Not only does the Lord defend Moses' conduct as proper, He severely >punishes the critics, especially Miriam, saying: > >Then He(God) said, "Hear now my words: if there is a prophet among you, I, the Lord, make >myself known to him in a vision; I speak to him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses; ><>. I speak with Him face to face, even plainly and not in >dark sayings; And He sees the form of the Lord. Why then were you not afraid to speak >against my servant Moses? (Num. 12:6-8) > >As I have noted in a previous letter, this passage shows that Moses is far greater than, >and qualitatively different from, any 'mere' prophet such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel and >the like. Though He(like Jesus) is sometimes referred to in the Bible as a prophet, Moses >belongs to a higher category altogether. From a Baha'i perspective, the difference resides >in His having been a Manifestation of God. He was thus a direct Revealer of God's word and >nature, occupying a station to which no ordinary human can aspire. > >If God Himself says that Moses was completely faithful to Him, how on earth can you, Dale >Grider, call Moses a sinner? As God asked Miriam, Why then were you not afraid to speak >against God's servant Moses? > >John > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Censorship? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Franck To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, May 02, 1998 2:21 PM Subject: Censorship? >Dear Friend, As I told you, I 've been a Baha'i for 25 years and the >reason I asked the question regarding the devil as symbolic or real was >because my sister is a Christian and says that Satan is harassing her. I >'ve looked up Satan in the writings and Ab'dul'Baha speaks of the subject >in his Tablets, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Foundations of World Unity >and Memorials of the Faithful. I'd asked on one of the Baha'i newsgroups >the same thing, but explaining about my sister and a Baha'i told me his >understanding of the Faith was that Satan was a real being. That prompted >me to write the second short question. While this is not a Baha'i subject >per se, it *is* discussed in the Writings and *is* an important part of >seeking to Christians. I'm in the USA where most people are Christians and >we deal with this a lot. I am new to newsgroups, so I apologize if I did >something that would start a flame war. But I did a search on the archives >and found my question in misc.talk.religion or something like that, but not >in soc.religion.Baha'i. Did you move it? Well I'm not getting much >response to it anyway. Just wanted to tell you my sistuation. The other >night I emailed you a very short note because I was needing to go to work. > > > Thanks, Cindi Franck Baha'i ID >0056364 > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:15 AM Subject: fw Censorship? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Franck To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, May 02, 1998 2:21 PM Subject: Censorship? >Dear Friend, As I told you, I 've been a Baha'i for 25 years and the >reason I asked the question regarding the devil as symbolic or real was >because my sister is a Christian and says that Satan is harassing her. I >'ve looked up Satan in the writings and Ab'dul'Baha speaks of the subject >in his Tablets, Promulgation of Universal Peace, Foundations of World Unity >and Memorials of the Faithful. I'd asked on one of the Baha'i newsgroups >the same thing, but explaining about my sister and a Baha'i told me his >understanding of the Faith was that Satan was a real being. That prompted >me to write the second short question. While this is not a Baha'i subject >per se, it *is* discussed in the Writings and *is* an important part of >seeking to Christians. I'm in the USA where most people are Christians and >we deal with this a lot. I am new to newsgroups, so I apologize if I did >something that would start a flame war. But I did a search on the archives >and found my question in misc.talk.religion or something like that, but not >in soc.religion.Baha'i. Did you move it? Well I'm not getting much >response to it anyway. Just wanted to tell you my sistuation. The other >night I emailed you a very short note because I was needing to go to work. > > > Thanks, Cindi Franck Baha'i ID >0056364 > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:17 AM To: rfranck@cyberback.com Subject: Re: fw Re: the devil real or symbolic? I've forwarded your other message to alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, and bahai-faith@makelist.com in hope that someone on one of those forums can help you. I don't believe I've tried to answer any previous message from you. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: Franck To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Saturday, May 02, 1998 9:59 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: the devil real or symbolic? >I received headers from you but not the contents. Did you wish to send me >something? CCF > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 3:20 PM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw & response: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors The treatment you describe here is quite typical of what I and others have met at the hands of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." It's why I for one continue to work for an unmoderated forum.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 10:28 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors >I had a very interesting experience with srb just this past week. I sent in a >post discussing female circumcision and asking what was the UHJ's position on >this barbaric practice. My post posed the rhetorical question: when do we as >Baha'is stop deferring to cultural mores and peak out firrmly against those >which harm or injure people? The post was rejected because I had used the >acronym UHJ and I was told in a very rude way I could speak out against the >issue myself if I felt so strongly about it. >To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was putting it mildly >indeed. Has anyone else experienced anything similar? What IS moderating, >anyhow...I'm beginning to think it is censorship based on the limited >understanding of the Teachings of the few whose task it is to review posts by >the readership. >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:23 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Dror@rocketmail.com wrote in message <6iig5s$cav$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >i'm doing a work about the bahai faith. >i'm focusing on the bahai believers. >my question to any bahai believer is, why did you choose the bahai faith? >what attracted you to this faith? > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:24 AM Subject: fw Re: Gay Bahai Fellowship fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6iisq2$rnb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > I recently came accross a paper by a Mr. Oray who wrote to the National >Spiritual Assembly recommending that the Faith accepts gay and lesbian >"Baha'is" as sexual beings who cannot change their orientation. His paper >claims: > >1) Modern science has proven that a person's inherent sexual orientation >cannot be changed, so LSAs should stop suggesting to gay Baha'is that they >should try to change their "God-given" sexuality. > >COMMENT: This is a lie! This has been the claim of the NGLTF and other >gay-rights organizations, but there is not ONE IOTA of truth to it! While >therapies to change homosexual orientation are often only temporary, for those >gays and lesbians who truly WANT to change their sexual orientation, there is >almost a 70% success rate. Claims to the contrary come from gay/lesbian >propaganda machines, and are based upon absolute misrepresentation. This is >NOT a "accepted view of science" that homosexuals can't change their sexual >orientation! > >2) The Nazis marched countless thousands of gays and lesbians into the death >camps. > >COMMENT: This is a lie! Many of the early Nazis were also founders and >members of the Society for Human Rights; the largest (masculine) homosexual >rights organization in Germany! Hitler's SA (Storm-Troopers) were exclusively >homosexual and bisexual before 1932! Ernst Rohm, the head of the SA and one of >the Founders of the Nazi Party, introduced Hitler to the Party in 1920. Rohm >was the most notoriously open-homosexual in Germany in the 1920s. Gay men who >went to the camps went to the 'work camps' not the death camps (although the >work camps were often deadly). Only gay men who were anti-Nazi, criminal, or >effeminate (masculine Nazi 'butch' gays considered 'Femmes' to be degenerates) >were sent to work camps. Of the approximately 12,000 who went, 6,000 died; >NONE in gas-chambers. Many of the SS guards in the camps were masculine >homosexuals, and raped many men and boys (both gays and staights). Many work >camp commanders had 'dolly-boys' (i.e. attractive Jewish or Gypsy boys and >young men they had sex with). Not 'one' Lesbian ever went to the camps because >of lesbianism! Many of the female camp guards were lesbians. > >3) Being gay or lesbian is a God-given natural sexual orientation! > >COMMENT: BOGUS! The Prophets of God have ALWAYS condemned homosexuality in no >uncertain terms. Efforts to 'explain it away' by gay and pro-gay scholars have >been exposed as deceptive. The Qu'ran says that Sodom was destroyed because >men used other men "as men use women". > > To members of the "Gay Baha'i Fellowship": Repent! Follow Baha'u'llah, or >don't follow Him. But don't be hypocrites. Efforts to force the Faith (either >by appeals to sympathy or pressure) will ultimately FAIL! Wake up, and repent >of your perversion. You are sick. Yes, this isn't a choice of yours, but SICK >you are! Seek help. You CAN change your sexual orientation with medical help, >but especially spirituality and your own WILL. You try to get in our faces, >then we will get into YOURS! You can be SURE of that! > > Repent, or you will go to HELL in the Afterlife. It isn't just a metaphor! >You will enter the Afterlife deformed, and damned. You will suffer beyond >comprehension. If you don't wish to transform your orientation, then serve God >celibate for the rest of your lives. Millions of heterosexuals (Catholics, >Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) have, so you're not being asked something millions of >others haven't already done. > >Cease being "Gay Baha'is" (i.e. "Hypocrites"). Be Baha'is, or "Gays", you >cannot be both. >Darrick Evenson >cc. soc.religion.bahai > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:49 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: fw & response: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors Roger Reini wrote in message <3550c8d6.78335057@news.newsguy.com>... >On Sun, 3 May 1998 15:20:26 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>The treatment you describe here is quite typical of what I and >>others have met at the hands of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." >>It's why I for one continue to work for an unmoderated forum.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >Not having seen the response from the moderators, it's hard for me to >comment. Well, let's ask Nancy to share them with us if she doesn't mind.... Please post them to makelist.com and I'll forward them. Personally, if the only thing that were objectionable in the >note was the use of "UHJ" to refer to the Universal House of Justice, >it should have been easy to replace the acronym with the full title of >the House. Moderator's notes are not uncommon. Especially on soc.religion.bahai.... > >I seem to recall the subject of female genital mutilation (a.k.a. >female circumcision) being discussed in a Baha'i forum fairly recently >(i.e., within the last few months). I don't recall which forum -- was >it soc.religion.bahai or the Bahai-Discuss mailing list, which is >reserved for Baha'is only? Certainly, one could use Deja News to >check if s.r.b had the discussion. > >Last year, there was a celebrated case of a woman from Togo who wanted >asylum in this country because she was under imminent danger of having >the procedure performed on her. An attorney who is Baha'i defended >her, with good results: her client received asylum. None of which addresses the issue of continuing, idiotic censorship on soc.religion.bahai.... > >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: LaAeterna >>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>Date: Sunday, May 03, 1998 10:28 AM >>Subject: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors >> >> >>>I had a very interesting experience with srb just this past week. I sent >>in a >>>post discussing female circumcision and asking what was the UHJ's position >>on >>>this barbaric practice. My post posed the rhetorical question: when do we >>as >>>Baha'is stop deferring to cultural mores and peak out firrmly against those >>>which harm or injure people? The post was rejected because I had used the >>>acronym UHJ and I was told in a very rude way I could speak out against the >>>issue myself if I felt so strongly about it. >>>To say I was flabberghasted at this type of "moderating" was putting it >>mildly >>>indeed. Has anyone else experienced anything similar? What IS moderating, >>>anyhow...I'm beginning to think it is censorship based on the limited >>>understanding of the Teachings of the few whose task it is to review posts >>by >>>the readership. >>>Nancy >>>---- >>>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>>-- >>>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >>> >> > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:50 AM Subject: Re: Gay Bahai Fellowship Alma wrote in message <6ikqpv$kae$1@news.goodnet.com>... >Since you are posting to a Baha'i newsgroup, I think that as a Baha'i I >might note that much of your message is not within the Baha'i framework. >There is no hell except that which we make for ourselves on earth. > >You also state that those who are homosexuals should follow Baha'u'llah. I >agree completely with this. Can you post for us exactly what Baha'u'llah >has to say about homosexuality? So far as I know there is just one >reference in the writings which may be so interpreted and that is in the >Kitab-i-Aqdas (don't have it handy so no reference to exact part) but there >it says in the original that Baha'u'llah blushes to think of slave boys. >The English translation by Shoghi Effendi omits the 'slave' part. But I >personally find it important because Baha'u'llah may be condemning all same >gendered sex, or all sex with slaves (unwilling participants) or all sex >with the underaged or possibly any two or any three. If you have another >reference that refers to homosexuality but can not refer to hetrosexual >practices between a married couple, perhaps you will post it. > >What does the above mean? I for one do not know. I think that it will be >for later generations of Baha'is to clarify the issue. In the meantime, I >try to follow the laws of Baha'u'llah as well as I can and encourage others >to do the same thing. To focus on themselves and not others. > >In peace, >Alma >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6iisq2$rnb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> I recently came accross a paper by a Mr. Oray who wrote to the National >>Spiritual Assembly recommending that the Faith accepts gay and lesbian >>"Baha'is" as sexual beings who cannot change their orientation. His paper >>claims: >> >>1) Modern science has proven that a person's inherent sexual orientation >>cannot be changed, so LSAs should stop suggesting to gay Baha'is that they >>should try to change their "God-given" sexuality. >> >>COMMENT: This is a lie! This has been the claim of the NGLTF and other >>gay-rights organizations, but there is not ONE IOTA of truth to it! While >>therapies to change homosexual orientation are often only temporary, for >those >>gays and lesbians who truly WANT to change their sexual orientation, there >is >>almost a 70% success rate. Claims to the contrary come from gay/lesbian >>propaganda machines, and are based upon absolute misrepresentation. This is >>NOT a "accepted view of science" that homosexuals can't change their sexual >>orientation! >> >>2) The Nazis marched countless thousands of gays and lesbians into the >death >>camps. >> >>COMMENT: This is a lie! Many of the early Nazis were also founders and >>members of the Society for Human Rights; the largest (masculine) homosexual >>rights organization in Germany! Hitler's SA (Storm-Troopers) were >exclusively >>homosexual and bisexual before 1932! Ernst Rohm, the head of the SA and one >of >>the Founders of the Nazi Party, introduced Hitler to the Party in 1920. >Rohm >>was the most notoriously open-homosexual in Germany in the 1920s. Gay men >who >>went to the camps went to the 'work camps' not the death camps (although >the >>work camps were often deadly). Only gay men who were anti-Nazi, criminal, >or >>effeminate (masculine Nazi 'butch' gays considered 'Femmes' to be >degenerates) >>were sent to work camps. Of the approximately 12,000 who went, 6,000 died; >>NONE in gas-chambers. Many of the SS guards in the camps were masculine >>homosexuals, and raped many men and boys (both gays and staights). Many >work >>camp commanders had 'dolly-boys' (i.e. attractive Jewish or Gypsy boys and >>young men they had sex with). Not 'one' Lesbian ever went to the camps >because >>of lesbianism! Many of the female camp guards were lesbians. >> >>3) Being gay or lesbian is a God-given natural sexual orientation! >> >>COMMENT: BOGUS! The Prophets of God have ALWAYS condemned homosexuality in >no >>uncertain terms. Efforts to 'explain it away' by gay and pro-gay scholars >have >>been exposed as deceptive. The Qu'ran says that Sodom was destroyed because >>men used other men "as men use women". >> >> To members of the "Gay Baha'i Fellowship": Repent! Follow Baha'u'llah, or >>don't follow Him. But don't be hypocrites. Efforts to force the Faith >(either >>by appeals to sympathy or pressure) will ultimately FAIL! Wake up, and >repent >>of your perversion. You are sick. Yes, this isn't a choice of yours, but >SICK >>you are! Seek help. You CAN change your sexual orientation with medical >help, >>but especially spirituality and your own WILL. You try to get in our faces, >>then we will get into YOURS! You can be SURE of that! >> >> Repent, or you will go to HELL in the Afterlife. It isn't just a >metaphor! >>You will enter the Afterlife deformed, and damned. You will suffer beyond >>comprehension. If you don't wish to transform your orientation, then serve >God >>celibate for the rest of your lives. Millions of heterosexuals (Catholics, >>Buddhists, Hindus, etc.) have, so you're not being asked something millions >of >>others haven't already done. >> >>Cease being "Gay Baha'is" (i.e. "Hypocrites"). Be Baha'is, or "Gays", you >>cannot be both. >>Darrick Evenson >>cc. soc.religion.bahai >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: fw Re: Gay Bahai Fellowship fw darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6ilk4b$6jm$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6ikqpv$kae$1@news.goodnet.com>#1/2, > "Alma " wrote: >> >> Since you are posting to a Baha'i newsgroup, I think that as a Baha'i I >> might note that much of your message is not within the Baha'i framework. >> There is no hell except that which we make for ourselves on earth. > >Dear Alma, > That's not my understanding of the Teachings. Hell is a condition of our >soul, and our soul is what we take with us to the Afterlife. Hell is here and >now, as well as there and then. In the here and now, we often don't know we >are in Hell, but in the there-and-then (the Afterlife) we will know, and it >will be as fire which burns us. That is my understanding. > > I don't need to repeat what Baha'u'llah said. You've seen it many times, but >you refuse to accept the Guardian's interpretation of it, but rather you are >relying upon your own interpretation. If all Baha'is could rely upon their own >interpretation, then the Faith could be whatever each individual wanted it to >be. Repent of your sins, and submit your perverted will to His Will. >Darrick Evenson > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:52 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? Alma wrote in message <6ikr27$knt$1@news.goodnet.com>... >An interesting question. And it might be turned around and stated as 'Why >did the Baha'i Faith (Baha'u'llah) choose me. Years ago I would have stated >that when I discovered the Faith, I found that I already agreed with most of >what it taught. That in fact I had been a Baha'i all my life. Now I think >I was led to it because Baha'u'llah has something for me to accomplish that >can best be accomplished within the bounds of the Faith. In contrast, I >think that Baha'u'llah also has things to be accomplished outside the Baha'i >Faith and if one follows one's heart and mind and conscience then one will >be led to the correct station in this life. > >In peace, >Alma >Dror@rocketmail.com wrote in message <6iig5s$cav$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>i'm doing a work about the bahai faith. >>i'm focusing on the bahai believers. >>my question to any bahai believer is, why did you choose the bahai faith? >>what attracted you to this faith? >> >>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >>https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? fw Massoud Ajami wrote in message ... >X-no-archive: yes >In article <6ikr27$knt$1@news.goodnet.com> "Alma " writes: >>From: "Alma " >>Subject: Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? >>Date: Mon, 4 May 1998 09:36:29 -0700 > >>An interesting question. And it might be turned around and stated as 'Why >>did the Baha'i Faith (Baha'u'llah) choose me. Years ago I would have stated >>that when I discovered the Faith, I found that I already agreed with most of >>what it taught. That in fact I had been a Baha'i all my life. Now I think >>I was led to it because Baha'u'llah has something for me to accomplish that >>can best be accomplished within the bounds of the Faith. In contrast, I >>think that Baha'u'llah also has things to be accomplished outside the Baha'i >>Faith and if one follows one's heart and mind and conscience then one will >>be led to the correct station in this life. > >Would you mind to tell about the accomplishment of say afterlife! And what >would be the phelosophey of that. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Gay Bahai's fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <6ilpcp$dve$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >"No matter how devoted and fine the love may be between people of the >same sex, to let it find expression in sexual acts is wrong. To say that >it is ideal is no excuse. Immorality of every sort is really forbidden >by Baha'u'llah, and homosexual relationships He looks upon as such, >besides being against nature. > >To be afflicted this way in a great burden to a conscientious soul. But >through the advice and help of doctors, through a strong and determined >effort, and through prayer, a soul can overcome this handicap." (From a >letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, March 26, >1950) > >Why does this subject keep coming up, and the same people keep claiming, over >and over, that there is nothing in the writings save a brief passage in the >Aqdas that can be interpreted differently than the way Shoghi Effendi >interpreted it? Is this selective blindness? > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:15 PM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com John Noland wrote in message ... >Hi Dale, > >Dale, I have argued that Abdu'l Baha's SAQ answer to the "Meaning of Christ's >Resurrection" has been misinterpreted by you. I'm well aware that my argument about the >context of the statement is not very strong. When I first entered this discussion, it had >been going on for quite some time. My argument about the context was intended as >supplemental to what had already been argued by other Baha'is. It was never intended to >stand on its own. This is not a knock on you Dale. It is something that I, myself, lost >sight of. As I said in my first letter, SAQ is NOT a book that was "written" by Abdu'l >Baha. It was compiled by a woman named Laura Clifford Barney. She visited Abdu'l Baha and >asked some questions for her own personal edification. Later, it was decided to compile >this discussion into book form. In doing this, it made editorial sense to arrange the book >roughly by subject matter. You can easily verify this by reading the Author's Preface in >the front of the book. I have personally seen in another publication where, in its >original form, the discussion of the Virgin Birth and the discussion of the Resurrection >are coupled together as part of the very same discussion. I cannot, at this time, provide >a definitive reference to support this supposition. If you are unwilling to take me at my >word on this, I understand, and I will happily withdraw it from the discussion. > >This doesn't change my opinion that you are misreading the passage in question. In some >ways your opinion is completely accurate. What I believe you are missing completely is the >spiritual aspect of the passage. This is most evinced by your repeated statements of >Abdu'l Baha's position being that of a materialist. Since I equated being a materialist to >being an atheist or a humanist, I take this to mean that you're implying that Abdu'l >Baha's position is that of an atheist or a humanist. I don't know if you were doing this >in all seriousness or if you were just trying to get under my skin. I'd guess probably a >little of both. It doesn't really matter which way you intended it, we'll take a look at >the text and see if it's true. > >You also indicate that you think I'm arguing for the bodily resurrection of Christ. That >would not be true. I have never said I believed in the bodily resurrection and have not >presented it as such. I might also add that I have never said that I didn't believe in the >bodily resurrection either. My basic argument has been that in this passage Abdu'l Baha is >not demanding a purely symbolic interpretation of the resurrection and that He is not >denying that the resurrection happened, for scientific or any other reasons. > >Let's examine the passage in question from Some Answered Questions. > >The Question is "What is the meaning of Christ's Resurrection after >three days?" > >The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. >All their states, their conditions, their acts, the things they have >established, their teachings, their expressions, their parables, >and their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and >have no connection with material things... > >In the context of our discussion, this passage basically says that the resurrection of >Christ has a spiritual and divine signification, and has no connection with material >things. In fact, pretty much ANYTHING Christ did or said has spiritual and not material >significance. This is a concept that, to no avail, I have repeatedly tried to stress to >you. When he says the resurrections...are not of the body, he is NOT talking about the >wholly material aspects that you think of when you think of the resurrection. To you, >those physical appearances of Christ to His disciples ARE the resurrection. That wasn't >how Abdu'l-Baha thought of it at all. To him, those events would have just been >circumstantial to the actual spiritual resurrection and he is NOT excluding those events >here. > >Abdu'l Baha then goes on to give an example from the Bible relating to this concept: > >..."And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son >of man which is in heaven." >Observe that is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on >earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the >womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that >the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; >it is a spiritual, not a material, fact... > >Here, Abdu'l Baha is explaining that when Christ said He came from heaven this is a >spiritual fact with spiritual significance. He then explains what coming from heaven >really means as a spiritual fact: > >...The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in >reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, >and the Spiritual Kingdom. And it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual >heaven of Divine Kingdom... > >The meaning of this is clear. In material terms, Christ's body was born of Mary. In >spiritual terms, Christ came from the spiritual heaven and NOT from the phenomenal >physical heaven. With, this being the case Abdu'l Baha now relates this concept to >Christ's martydom: > >...therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification >and is not an outward fact... > >Christ died on the cross. He lay dead two or three days in His tomb. This is obviously a >fact, material or otherwise. Abdu'l Baha is clearly relating the same idea here as he has >previously related, that Christ's disappearance for three days has spiritual and not >material significance. Here, it would be helpful to remember that the question being >answered relates to the meaning of these things, not how they actually occurred. With this >in mind, Abdu'l Baha now relates the meaning of the resurrection of Christ: > >...In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it >is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; > >Christ's resurrection is symbolical, but it is also a spiritual and divine FACT. This >means that in some sense, Christ's resurrection is symbolical but not PURELY symbolical. >Clearly he is saying the resurrection happened, but no explanation is given here for how >this spiritual and divine fact manifested itself, just it's significance (which is >explained a little further below). > >Now Abdu'l Baha explains the ascension: > >...and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension. >Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible >heavens is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve. > >This simply says that Christ's Spirit ascended to the same spiritual heaven that He >descended from and not that His physical body ascended to the phenomenal physical heaven. >I don't know what else to say that I haven't said previously. If you believe that the >physical heaven and the spiritual heaven are one and the same, all I can do is ask, Why do >you believe this? > >Now Abdu'l Baha goes on to explain the significance of Christ's resurrection. In other >words, he explains what the tangible results of His resurrection were in relation to the >world we live in: > >Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ's resurrection is as follows: the disciples >were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which >signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden >or concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and >magnificent. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were >troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three >days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, >and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice and >arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; >His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In >other words the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of >the Holy Spirit surrounded it. > >The disciples indeed were troubled and agitated. When Jesus was arrested, the apostles >'forsook Him and fled'(Matt 26:56). Peter even denied knowing Jesus three times in order >to save Himself. Christ had died and the disciples had good reason to be fearful for their >own lives. After three days the disciples began to grow more confident in there faith with >their Lord, master and undisputed leader being absent. My opinion is that as with most of >the biblical stories of miracles, the miracle is contingent on faith. For example, Christ >couldn't work many miracles in Galilee for lack of faith (Mark 6:5-6). When their faith >became evident, the Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His >perfections and His spiritual power, became resplendent and His bounty APPEARED. His >teachings and His admonitions became evident and VISIBLE. In other words, the resurrection >is the event that gave life to the Cause of Christ. > >Now Abdu'l Baha finishes up by saying: > >Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But >as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the >symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and >science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of >Christ with an elemental body to the physical heaven is contrary to the science of >mathematics. But when the truth of the subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, >science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and intelligence affirm >it. > >This statement is fairly self-explanatory. Abdu'l Baha says that Christ's resurrection was >a true resurrection. The clergy have failed to properly understand the significance of the >resurrection and the ascension. Therefore, some people (I assume materialists) have found >science and religion to be contrary to one another on these issues. This need not be an >issue if the meaning is truly understood and science and intelligence should instead >affirm the resurrection. Which means we should affirm the resurrection and not deny it. > >To summarize from this passage and other passages in the Baha'i Writings: > >'Abdu'l-Baha says in SAQ that the Resurrection is a spiritual and divine fact and that our >purpose is not to deny it but to affirm it (SAQ 104-105). He states explicitly that after >Christ's crucifixion the disciples saw Christ living, helping and protecting them(SAQ >106-107). He cites the continuing influence of the Living Christ on this earthly plane as >a proof of His immortality: Consider that today the Kingdom of Christ exists. From a >nonexisting king how could such a great kingdom be manifested? (SAQ 225). > >'Abdu'l-Baha further explains that Christ's Resurrection was a phenomenon not of this >material plane, but of the divine, invisible World of Reality. It did not concern Christ's >mortal, flesh-and-blood body but rather His spiritual body. For Christ had an elemental >body and a celestial form. The elemental body was crucified, but the heavenly form is >living and eternal, and the cause of everlasting life ... It is evident that the heavenly >bread did not signify this material bread, but rather the divine nourishment of the >spiritual body of Christ(SAQ 98-99). Elsewhere Abdu'l Baha asserts repeatedly the reality >of this heavenly or ethereal body: It is manifest that beyond this material body, man is >endowed with another reality, which is the world of exemplars constituting the heavenly >body of man ... This other and inner reality is called the heavenly body, the ethereal >form which corresponds to this body (Promulgation, 464-465). > >Despite your assertions to the contrary, this terminology agrees perfectly with that of >Saint Paul, who states in I Corinthians 15 that Christ rose not in an earthly or >terrestrial body of flesh made from the dust of the earth, but rather in a celestial or >spiritual body. Flesh and blood, says the Apostle, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Thus >Christ was not resurrected as flesh and blood but as a life-giving spirit. But Paul -- >like 'Abdu'l-Baha -- insists that the Resurrection was real. It was, in fact, a far >greater Reality, a deeper, more profound, more important, more earth-shaking reality, than >it could possibly have been had it been confined to this world of dust. > >As I said in my first letter on the Resurrection, An all-powerful divine being such as >Christ can always manifest Himself in any manner that suits His purpose - either >physically or spiritually. However, Saint Paul explains in I Corinthians 15, verses 35-50, >that the 'spiritual body' of the Resurrection is something infinitely greater than a >'natural' body made from the dust of the earth', and he cites the risen Christ as his >prime example. So if the question is whether Christ has a physical body today, we would >have to say, 'Only when He wants one!' And the Bible clearly shows that He normally would >have no reason to want one. > >As to the verses that indicate that Christ showed Himself physically to His disciples. The >ultimate point of these verses was to show that Christ lived on after His death on the >cross. So, regardless of what happened to the disciples, it makes no difference whether >Christ appeared at that time with a physical body. What matters is whether He kept it -- >i.e., whether He still has one today. If He still is trapped in a mortal frame, then He >can't reappear in a new human temple; and Baha'u'llah's claim to be the spiritual return >of Christ is ruled out of order. But if Christ at any point returned to the spiritual >World of Reality, relinquishing physical existence, then the nature of return becomes a >live issue -- even if He was at one point physical. (I would ask that you read my original >letter on the resurrection again, rather than have me repeat myself any more here. My >further thoughts on the glorified body are near the end of this note. Thanks.) > >Since 'Abdu'l-Baha speaks of the resurrections of the Divine Manifestations (plural), it >follows that Baha'u'llah, like Christ, rose from the dead. Shoghi Effendi describes >Baha'u'llah's resurrection on p. 244 of God Passes By: ...the dissolution of the >tabernacle wherein the soul of the Manifestation had chosen temporarily to abide >signalized its release from the restrictions which an earthly life had, of necessity, >imposed upon it. Its influence no longer circumscribed by any physical limitations, its >radiance no longer beclouded by its human temple, that soul could henceforth energize the >whole world to a degree unapproached at any stage in the course of its existence on this >planet. > >This world-changing, world-energizing resurrection of Baha'u'llah is a model for the >Resurrection of Christ Himself. Like Baha'u'llah's, the Resurrection of Christ had a >profound impact upon events of the material plane: It transformed the lives and actions of >the disciples, galvanized and reanimated the early Church, and crystallized into the new >civilization of the Holy Roman Empire. These earthly events were among the symbolic >significances of Christ's heavenly resurrection -- but 'Abdu'l-Baha's point, which He >drives home time and again, is that these outward activities happened BECAUSE Christ was >truly alive and eternal in being. Had His immortal spirit not survived the crucifixion, >had He not truly conquered death, hell and the grave (as some Christians express it), none >of these subsequent events could have happened. Nor would it have mattered if they had. > >you said, > >>In terms of authoritative Baha'i doctrine this is a false statement. >>Baha'i doctrine does not look at the two events in the same way at >>all. And it doesn't take reams of lengthy Baha'i passages to point it >>out. It can be seen by comparing what Abdul Baha clearly says about >>both the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection from Some Answered >>Questions. >> >>pg 87 >> Question.--How was Christ born of the Holy Spirit? >> >>...surely the first man had neither father nor mother, for the >>existence of man is phenomenal. Is not the creation of man without >>father and mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he >>had simply come into existence without a father? As you (the >>"materialist") admit that the first man came into existence without >>father or mother--whether it be gradually or at once--there can >>remain no doubt that a man without a human father is also possible >>and admissible; you cannot consider this impossible; otherwise, you >>are illogical." >>We find that Abdul Baha simply accepts the physical/literal nature of >>the virgin birth. He bases this on the logical argument that the >>first man could, by definition, not have had a father either. >>Interestingly, his argument would, by the same reasoning, preclude >>the first man from having had a natural mother either. A sticky point >>that he conveniently fails to mention. > >I think you should read that part of SAQ again, Dale. Abdu'l Baha never expresses his own >opinion in this passage, but instead presents a conversation from two opposing points of >view, theologians and materialists, neither of which Abdu'l Baha adopts as his own. At the >bottom of page 88, there is a note that reads, "This conversation shows the uselessness of >discussions upon such questions". Also, if you read the very next page (page 89), you will >find that he does address the fact that the first man had neither mother or father and >didn't conveniently fail to mention it as you assert. Or better yet, you could just look >at the verse you quoted in your own letter where it says, "surely the first man had >neither father nor mother...". You would need to look elsewhere in the writings to find >what you're looking for about the reality of the Virgin Birth. > >Nowhere do the Baha'i writings explicitly deny the physical aspects of Christ's >resurrection. Likewise, nowhere do they explicitly affirm these material aspects. They do >provide an explanation of the spiritual significance of the resurrection, which you >wrongly refer to as the symbolic re-interpretation of the resurrection. The reality of the >Resurrection and the Virgin Birth are both explicitly affirmed in the Baha'i writings. As >to why the Virgin Birth is not symbolised in the same way as the resurrection, I have >previously stated that we view it in exactly the same way we view the resurrection. That >would be that it has spiritual significance, not material. So, in reality we have >symbolised it in exactly the same way as the resurrection. > >Now let's discuss your Fireside Letters. I have read them Dale. It's obvious that you put >a lot of work into those papers. It's also obvious that you're a very intelligent person. >With these things in mind, it's difficult to determine how you could reach such faulty >conclusions (from my perspective). In my mind, there are two possible explanations for >this. Either, you intentionally excluded important points contained in the Baha'i Writings >or you were sincere in your investigation and just haven't delved deep enough to resolve >the contradictions you think you have found. You believe you have found many >contradictions in Baha'i theology. From your perspective, you believe you found these >things simply because you are an objective investigator. I'm skeptical about your >objectivity and your methods. Your insistence that your view of Scripture is absolutely >correct precludes you from being objective. Baha'u'llah claims to be the Second Coming of >Christ with a new Revelation from God. You have never given this claim serious >consideration. This is apparent from your insistence that His teachings on Christ and the >Bible must match yours exactly. If you haven't seriously considered the possibility that >Baha'u'llah is who He says He is, how can you consider yourself objective? This letter is >going to be way too long as it is, so I don't want to go into any great detail in >discussing other issues, but I would like to present a couple of things here for your >consideration. Hopefully, instead of just attacking these views, you will consider the >possibility that you haven't discovered the full truth. > >Toward the end of your paper entitled Sin, Satan and Truth, you make the following >statement: > >[The progression of doctrines that lead to Baha'u'llah's taking >license to present humanity with an allegedly "advanced" revelation >must begin by denying the universal constancy of the "Law" of >spiritual morality. If the Law changes over time then the singular >cure for it can also be denied it's associated exclusiveness. But if, >as Jesus tells us, the Law is unchanging, then by comparison we can >see that mankind's sickness has always been the same sickness, and >thus the error in Baha'u'llah's rationale that, > >..."Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular >aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day >afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may >require."] > >The concept of Progressive Revelation says that throughout human history God has sent >forth Messengers from among humankind to teach the knowledge of God and the prerequisites >of salvation. In Baha'i terminology these Messengers are referred to as Manifestations of >God. Baha'u'llah writes that "manifold systems of religious belief" have "proceeded from >one source, and are rays of one Light" (Epistle 13). That these religions appear to >"differ one from another is to be attributed to the ages in which they were promulgated" >(Epistle 13). Shoghi Effendi explained that the Baha'i Faith regards all divinely revealed >religions "in no other light except as different stages in the eternal history and >constant evolution of one religion, Divine and indivisible, of which it itself forms but >an integral part." > >Baha'is believe that the Manifestions of God are, on the one hand, unique individuals and, >on the other, essentially one and equal. This is not a contradiction, but is referred to >as the dual stations of the Manifestations of God. Baha'u'llah writes: > >These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure >abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, >and dost ascribe to them the same attribute, thou hast not erred from the truth. >(Kitab-i-Iqan 152) > >When we speak of the Manifestations in the context of their divinity, none is exalted >above another because there is no distinction, They are all essentially one. That is, They >all speak the Word of God and guide humankind as bidden by God. This station deals with >moral and spiritual values, with the exposition of Divine truths and essential principles, >which are repeated unchanged in all the great religions of the world. As you put it Dale, >"the universal constancy of the "Law" of spiritual morality" is a fact from one >Manifestation to another and is not something that Baha'u'llah denied. A cursory study of >the world's major religions will reveal that each teaches the same moral code, though the >language used in each is suited to the particular social or historical situation. For >example, each religion has it's own version of Golden Rule and many other biblical >teachings. > >The other station Baha'u'llah calls the "station of distinction" which "pertaineth to the >world of creation" (Kitab-i-Iqan 176). In this respect, "Each one of them is known by a >different name, is characterized by a special attribute, fulfills a definite Mission, and >is entrusted with a particular Revelation" (Kitab-i-Iqan 176). Thus in this sense, >concerning their specific teachings, or Revelations, a distinction can be made. This >station consists of teachings and laws concerned with practical and social requirements of >the time. This part changes according to the evolution of human society and its changing >needs, and consequently varies from religion to religion. > >In other places in your papers, you indicate that there is a contradiction concerning the >nature of mankind. Are we progressive or regressive? You contend that in different places >the Baha'i Writings indicate in a contradictory fashion that we are both. You go on at >length about this and extrapolate it to extraordinary degrees, all the while seemingly >missing the two distinct stations of each of the Manifestations. I will attempt to briefly >explain this concept. Each time a Manifestation comes forth with their message, all >creation is infused with spiritual power. Immediately, some portion of mankind reacts >positively to the message brought forth. As time goes on, this group of believers begins >to grow and many great things are accomplished, both individually and collectively, and >civilization advances as a result. At some point, the believers begin to lose sight of the >original message, civilization may continue to advance, but individually more and more >believers become spiritually lost until the original message barely exists in the world. >The Jews of Jesus' time are a good example of a religious people at this point. At some >point pre-ordained by God, a new Messenger is sent to renew the message, and to give new >teachings to allow the continued advancement of civilization. > >I'll turn to Baha'i author John Hatcher to explain better: > >The linkage or interplay between phenomenal reality and spiritual reality is clearly >demonstrated in the Baha'i concept of how human society advances through the process of >progressive revelation; for it's the Manifestations who in their character and teaching >explicate this crucial linkage between these two aspects of reality, between these two >worlds. In the broadest sense, it is their mission to explain and demonstrate how >phenomenal reality functions as an outward expression of the spiritual world. In this >vein, it is axiomatic in discussions of Baha'i theology to note how the Prophets of God >provide two categories of information - the one, a reiteration of eternal spiritual >verities; the other, an enunciation of the laws, ordinances and social methodology whereby >that spiritual insight can be expressed through dramatic, metaphorical action. > A part of this same distinction is the observation that where the first sort of >instruction alludes to a reality that is eternal and constant, the second alludes to a >creation that is in a constant state of change and evolution. Consequently, the spiritual >verities enunciated by the Prophets are in accord, whereas their laws, ordinances and >social teachings often vary, sometimes significantly, because they are guiding a >constantly changing organism, the human body politic, through myriad changes of 'an >ever-advancing civilization'. In short, while eternal attributes of the spiritual world >are constant, the implementation of them in the phenomenal world is always relative and >capable of infinite progression towards the eternal ideal without ever becoming that >ideal. (Arc of Ascent 18-9) > >It should be readily apparent to you Dale, that you have missed a very fundamental >concept. I have read your papers and you show absolutely no understanding of the two >stations as I've presented them above. Either you deliberately ignored this information or >you just flat-out missed it. Either way, this knowledge impacts a large percentage of your >Fireside Letters. I could say here what I expect from you, in terms of a response given in >good faith, but it's not my place. We both know what impact this information has on your >Fireside Letters. > >You mention John Hatcher as a Baha'i apologist in your Religion and Science paper. You >actually go on later to cite the work of William Hatcher. As far as I know, John Hatcher >has never written a book defending the Baha'i Faith, so I don't understand the basis for >your calling him a Baha'i apologist. John Hatcher wrote a book called The Arc of Ascent >(quoted above). This book concerns aspects of the Baha'i Faith and is written with a >Baha'i audience in mind, so it would be inappropriate to term it an apologetic work. If >you have an opportunity, I would recommend you try and obtain a copy. He also wrote a book >called The Ocean of His Words. In this book, he makes the following statement: > >In short, while Baha'u'llah is absolutely clear about equating His station as a Prophet >with the station of the Prophets that have preceded Him, He is equally clear in these >allusions to the special nature of this turning point in human history and to the role of >His particular Revelation in ushering in this changed condition. To read these passages >without being aware of the Baha'i paradigm of human history and the crucial role the >Revelation of Baha'u'llah plays in the total context of that history is to run the risk of >interpreting various passages in the works of Baha'u'llah as denying some of the most >essential tenets of Baha'i theology - i.e., that the Revelation of God is continuous and >that all the Prophets have an equal status, even if They may not have an identical >function: > >Each one of Them is known by a different name, is characterized by a special attribute, >fulfils a definite Mission, and is entrusted with a particular Revelation. Even as He >saith: "Some of the Apostles We caused to excel the others. To some God hath spoken, some >He hath raised and exalted..." (Kitab-i-Iqan 176) > >This passage relates to your paper entitled "The Station of Baha'u'llah" and your argument >that Baha'u'llah considers Himself the Supreme Manifestation. I'm not going to elaborate >on this, but I hope some of this spurs you to re-examine your stance on these issues. I >would also submit, that aside from these issues, you have a fundamental misunderstanding >of many other Baha'i concepts. Perhaps, in time, we'll reach a point where we can discuss >these issues. > >In your note you say, > >[Now in regards to all of this you made a profession of faith quite >amazing to me. Considering the line of argument I have presented I was >surprised to hear you say, > >"We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. With >Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any dogma or doctrine >associated with that religion and search for truth directly from Scripture."] > >What I actually said was, > >We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. With Christianity, >that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any dogma or doctrine associated with that >religion and search for truth directly from Scripture. If we come across anything in >Scripture that is contrary to science or is in some way supernatural, we are not to give >any special consideration to it. Again, this doesn't mean we should disregard it or that >we should deny it's actual occurrence. It means we should try and determine it's spiritual >significance. What was the purpose of the miracle? What was it meant to teach us? > >It doesn't work without the counsel toward the application of reason. > >I don't understand why you call this a "profession of faith" or why you find it "quite >amazing", except that you figure that you personally hold the key to Biblical >interpretation and anyone that doesn't agree with you is wrong. > >>It takes Paul's words out of context, presuming to have him believe >>in doctrines he would have been appalled at when we look at what he >>taught and believed within a proper context. Not only does Paul say >>these things himself, but Luke independently corroborates Paul's >>words and intentions, solidifying the true intention of Scripture's >>message. > >He may very well have been appalled by what I say. I can't say one way or another, since I >have no authority to speak for the Apostle Paul. The fact is nobody can truthfully say >that they know the intentions of the apostles or what they would have thought. I >personally find Paul's writings to be very compatible with the Baha'i writings. As to >taking his words out of context, that would be untrue. He was specifically asked how the >dead are raised and what sort of body they have. He says, 'It is sown a natural body, it >is raised a spiritual body.' He then procceeds to use Christ as the example of this. He >says, 'Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.' In II Cor., he says, "Even >though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer.' I >just don't see how you can continually insist that this is taking Paul's word's out of >context. He consistently relates this spiritual theme throughout his writings. > >Your argument centers on a extremely literal translation of the Bible. What authority >makes this sort of literal translation more authoritative than a somewhat figurative style >of translation? If you study Christian history, there is no indication that this is a >tradition passed down from the apostles themselves. Your position seems to be that there >is only one correct way to view Scripture and that would be your way. Either God has truly >blessed you with a very special gift, or there is room for other peoples views. Neither I, >nor other Baha'is, endorse a PURELY figurative translation of the Bible, but when we do >use figurative interpretation we use it sensibly and with an eye toward interpreting >Scripture as it was intended to be interpreted, i.e., spiritually. I know that you don't >deny that the Scriptures contain symbols, metaphors, analogies, and figurative language. >On the other hand, you refuse to acknowledge that Baha'is do not deny that some verses >have literal meanings. I would argue that the issue is the extent to which either >literalism or symbolism is used and whether or not Scripture can have more meanings than >just what is obvious. I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but I do know that >Biblical interpretation is complex enough to allow for legitimate differences of opinion >without one person or the other necessarily being wrong. > >You have repeatedly mocked my sincerity on this issue, so just saying that it is so >probably doesn't carry any weight with you. So, let's look at the Bible. We'll study the >words of Jesus and the words of the Bible and see if my way of interpreting the Bible is >as crazy as you make it sound or if yours is as dead-on accurate as you think it is. But >first, let's look at a few stories from the Bible that seemingly lend themselves to a >literal translation. Out of curiosity, I would like to know how you interpret them. > >There's a story in the Bible where Jesus is hungry and He goes to find something to eat on >a fig tree. The fig tree has leaves but no fruit. Jesus says to the fig tree "Let no fruit >grow on you ever again." The fig tree then withers away. What do you make of this story >Dale? Should you, as a good Christian, follow Jesus' example when you come across a fig >tree that doesn't have any fruit on it? Since you can't just curse the fig tree like Jesus >did, should you go get an axe, chop it down and throw it on the fire and burn it? And then >say, "Take that, you stupid fig tree! That's what you get for having no fruit!" Should you >apply this teaching to any fruit tree or does it just apply specifically to fig trees? Or >is there possibly another point to the story? It's told in a very literal sense. The >disciples saw it. They exclaimed in shock when they saw it. I would venture to say that >the "literal" point of this very literal story is something other than this very >simplistic explanation. What do you think? > >Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. The event is descibed in great detail. Jesus had heard >that Lazarus was sick, yet He didn't rush to Lazarus' aid. In fact, He knew Lazarus was >going to die. Jesus loved Lazarus, why didn't He go to help? Did Jesus allow Lazarus to >die just so He could prove to His disciples that He had the power to raise him again? On >the way to Bethany, Jesus told the disciples that Lazarus was dead. Then He said "And I am >glad for your sakes that I was not there, that you may believe. Nevertheless let us go to >him." Why did Thomas the Twin then say to the disciples, "Let us also go, that we may die >with him"? Did he intend that they commit mass suicide? When they arrived Lazarus had been >dead for four days. Mary, Martha and many others, including Jesus, wept at his loss. There >was the stench of death and when Jesus summoned Lazarus from his tomb, He was bound hand >and foot with graveclothes and his face was wrapped with a cloth. It seems there is just >no way to take the author's intentions but literally. There are many places in the Bible >where it is easy to see that when someone is called dead, the clear intention is that it >means that they are spiritually dead. This doesn't appear to be the case here. The author >goes to extreme lengths to show that Lazarus was physically dead. Many people saw this >event transpire. Why did some of these people become believers and others didn't? If you >had just seen someone raise a person from the dead, no matter how spiritually bankrupt you >were, I doubt that you would react by going to tell that person's enemies. How could you >not believe? Is Lazarus still alive somewhere in the world today or was Lazarus raised >from the dead just to die again later? In this story Jesus offers this additional insight >into His teachings on resurrection. Jesus said, 'I am the resurrection and the life: he >that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and >believeth in me shall never die.' Was Jesus speaking literally here, in terms of physical >bodies? If he was, then this would mean that all the believers up until that time who had >died had already been physically raised from the dead. It also would mean that hundreds of >millions of "living" Christians since that time never really died and are still living >somewhere here on the earth today! So, what was the point of the story? > >Let's look at the feeding of the five thousand and the feeding of the four thousand. Is >there any significance to the fact that there was enough food left over to fill twelve and >seven baskets respectively? Is there any precedence anywhere else in the NT for food to >mean something other than its obvious meaning? If Jesus literally fed nine thousand people >with a few loaves of bread and a few fish, why did the disciples only number one hundred >twenty shortly after Jesus death? The story relates the fact that these multitudes were >present just to see Jesus. Surely, such a miracle should have won Him more than a few >converts. Could this story possibly have a point besides showing that Jesus could >miraculously feed a lot of people with very little food? > >How do you interpret this straightforward passage: Then the disciples of John came to him, >saying, 'Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?' And Jesus said >to them, 'Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days >will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. And no >one puts a piece of unshrink cloth on an old garment, for the patch tears away from the >garment, and a worse tear is made. Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; if it is, >the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put >into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.' (Matt 9:14-17) These are just simple >parables. I'm reasonably certain your interpretation will be the same as mine, but you >never know. > >Now let's look at the figurative language of Jesus Himself. > >Jesus often spoke in parables to convey spiritual lessons. There are also many instances >where Jesus used words in a symbolic manner without the use of a story (i.e., a parable) >to illustrate His points. Specific examples can be seen in Jesus' teaching about being >'born again' and His being 'the bread from heaven.' In each example, those listening to >Jesus misunderstood His words because they interpreted His sayings literally and did not >see that He was explaining spiritual truths through symbols. Even His followers failed to >understand and said, 'This is a hard saying; who can understand it?' (John 6:60) Jesus >indicated that He was to be understood spiritually with these words, 'It is the Spirit who >gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they >are life.' (John 6:63) Nevertheless, the Gospel tells us that many stopped following >Christ because of these teachings (John 6:66). This indicates that Christ clearly used >words in a symbolic manner, even to the extent that people turned away without having >understood. > >Jesus miraculously healed many people of blindness. How did Jesus Himself use the term >"blind" when He spoke? Jesus said He came to judge the world, "For judgement I have come >into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may be made blind", >and He added to the Pharisees, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, >'We see.' Therefore your sin remains", and again "If I had not come and spoken to them, >they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin". As far as I know, >there is no record of Jesus making anyone blind who could see physically. The existence of >sin is made dependent on the absence of blindness, indeed it is made to depend on the >coming of Jesus. Aside from showing that Jesus didn't believe in the strange concept of >original sin, this shows clearly that Jesus used the term "blind" in a figurative sense to >indicate that someone was spiritually blind and not physically blind. When Jesus spoke of >the Pharisees, He said on another occasion, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the >blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall in the ditch". when the Bible >speaks of Jesus healing the blind, it was a healing of the inner eye of the soul and not >physical eyesight. > >Jesus many times spoke of Himself as light: "I am the light of the world. He who follows >me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.", "As long as I am in the >world, I am the light of the world", "I have comes as a light into the world, that whoever >believes in me shall not abide in darkness." Clearly, this light He spoke of was not >literally light in the sense that light shines from an electric bulb, a torch or the sun. >It was not something that could be measured from a photometer. If it's not this sort of >light, what did Jesus mean? > >The examples can be multiplied over and over again. "Light", "Bread", "being born", >"blindness", even "spirit" which derives from the Greek word pneuma, meaning breath, all >mean something other than their literal physical meanings when Jesus used the words. > >Jesus said that He spoke in parables. Why did He say that He did that? In Mark 4:10-2 and >Matt. 13:13, Jesus suggests that His purpose for using parables was not primarily to >enlighten the unenlightened, but to harden the unbelief of the unbeliever. The author of >Hebrews also asserts that there is a purpose in the way Scripture is written, i.e., to >disclose the intentions of the heart: > >For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing >even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and morrow, and is the discerner of >the thoughts and intents of the hearts. (Heb. 4:12) > >In other words, the power of the word of God separates like a two edged sword cutting >apart the sincere from the irreligious and self-righteous, or the spiritual from the >carnal. > >In support of the Baha'i interpretive style, it is found that Paul emphasizes that the >meaning of Scripture should be spiritually discerned: > >These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy >Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not >receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know >them, because they are spiritually discerned. (I Cor 2:13-4) > >and again, > >God...has made us able ministers of New Testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit; >for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. (II Cor. 3:6) > >Paul further illustrates that he was agreeable to the use of figurative interpretation. >Paul's writings contain instances of allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament, >which affirm that Scripture can have multiple meanings - spiritual meanings which are not >evident if interpreted literally. Although Paul, like Baha'is, doesn't deny an actual >historical reality for the accounts, he nevertheless arrives at conclusions which are not >apparent in the literal sense. In Galatians 4:22-6, Paul gives an interpretation based on >Genesis 13. Paul explains that Sarai's maidservant Hagar is a symbol of Mount Sinai in >Arabia, which he says represents Jerusalem. (This reminds of place in your Fireside >Letters where you say you can't symbolize a symbol. It appears this is contradictory to >Paul's method of interpretation.) In Paul's day Jerusalem was under Roman domination. Paul >uses this domination, or bondage, metaphorically to express the bondage of the Jews to the >law of Moses. Thus, Paul sees Hagar as a symbol of Jerusalem because Hagar was a >bondwoman, and Jerusalem was under Roman bondage. Clearly, in Sarai, Hagar, Mount Sinai >and Jerusalem, Paul perceived symbolic meanings that are not apparent in the literal sense >of Genesis 13. > >In Exodus 17:6, Moses struck the rock in Horeb to produce water. Paul does not interpret >this passage literally as water running out of the rock. Instead, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, >Paul sees Christ prefigured in this account of Exodus, even though the author of Exodus >did not give any indication that such passages are symbolic and are not intended to be >understood in an exclusively literal sense. > >Again in Exodus we find another apparently literal historical event, which Paul interprets >symbolically. It is recorded that, after Moses spoke with God, His face shone so brightly >the people of Israel were afraid to come near Him. This caused Moses to veil His face when >He spoke to the Israelites (Exodus 34). Paul interprets this account in Exodus >allegorically, explaining, in 2 Corinthins 3:12-16, why the Jews don't understand the >Sciptures as the Christians do. In this case Paul sees the veil over Moses' face as a >symbol of the Jews' non-acceptance of Christ and, consequnetly, their inability to >understand the real message of the Scriptures. In each of these examples Paul goes beyond >the literal meaning and reveals a hidden spiritual meaning. Yet there is no indication in >the text that these passages have any intended meanings other than in the literal sense. >Paul must have believed that Scripture contained concealed meanings even in instances when >it appears to be quite literal. > >Obviously, Paul provides many clear precedences for the sort of "symbolic >re-interpretation" of Scripture you describe (I personally object to this terminology, but >it's what you said). He does this without denying the literal interpretation, just as >Abdu'l-Baha has done in SAQ. It's also obvious, when reading Paul's epistles in their >entirety that he saw no use for the flesh. To him all that mattered was spiritual. I've >shared specific verses with you several times. From the entirety of Paul's writings I feel >completely secure in saying that Paul didn't even care if there was a fleshly component to >Jesus' resurrection. I believe Paul recognized that the resurrection was real and that it >was spiritual, and his repeated references to the individual believers making up the >'body' of the raised Christ provide further evidence that he understood the spiritual >significance of Christ's resurrection in the same way as Abdu'l-Baha did. > >To summarize: Man hasn't been given any capacity to describe transcendental truths >directly. When we wish to make statements about spiritual things, we can only use our >concrete ideas from the world of our senses. If we say, 'God raised Christ from the dead', >we might mean it in a spiritual way, but our description must be drawn from the world of >the senses. It is the same when we talk about 'progress' or say someone is spiritually 'on >a high level'. In human language there is indeed not a single word which could explain a >direct spiritual concept. Instead, every statement must use the mantle of what can be >registered by the senses. This is why Christ spoke in parables, and why it served to >separate the spiritual from the carnal. Sometimes, it is difficult for us mere humans to >understand all that is written in the Holy Books, so it is necessary for subsequent >Manifestations of God to enlighten us to the true meaning of the words. > >>The kinds of verses, especially as relayed in the clearly historical, >>narrative style of Acts, have nothing to do with a symbolic "Midrash" >>writing style, interwoven as they are within the chronological >>description of events as they unfolded in the new Church and whose >>literal intention is confirmed by those other passages that reflect >>back on the miracles themselves with commentary that assumes literal >>intent. > >The entire New Testament was written in Greek (at least the oldest existing copies we have >are in Greek), so there isn't going to be a "symbolic 'Midrash' writing style" anywhere in >it, even if there were such a thing. Midrash is an ancient Hebrew method of figurative >interpretation. The Greek method is called "allegoria". Please note that these are >interpretation styles and NOT writing styles. The examples I cited above show that >symbolism is not dependent on any sort of writing style. > >You mentioned in your letter that you couldn't believe I could have "missed all of the >many post-Resurrection passages that "directly" detail aspects of Jesus' glorified body". > >We both know that I provided all of those passages and commented on them in my letter on >the Resurrection. In that letter I also mentioned the fact that some Christians believed >these passages refer to some sort of "glorified" body. In your response to that letter you >said "I will concede that we do not understand the 'glorified body'". That would be >correct, because the fact is the Bible provides us with certain post-Resurrection events >that don't make a lot of sense, as I said in my Resurrection letter: > >Since the resurrection is a divine mystery, it is neither >possible nor important for us to understand precisely how it >occurred. We can, however, glean, important insights from >the various Gospel accounts. These suggest that the risen >Christ appeared to His disciples in what some call a >'glorified' body. Such a form apparently is one He can >manifest as He chooses, through either our physical or >spiritual senses. NT writers consistently emphasize the >extraordinary nature of His post-resurrection presence... > >I then detailed many of the passages relating to Jesus' post-Resurrection presence among >the disciples. Christ, His disciples and the authors of the Gospels clearly wanted us to >know that, even after His physical death, Christ lived. These passages indicate that there >was something mysterious going on, but the Bible doesn't explain what we should make of >these things beyond the fact that Christ lived. When you propose to offer a solution to >this mystery, such as the 'glorified' body, that same solution will be by its very nature >unbiblical. Flesh can't go to heaven... To make the jump to a glorified body that is both >physical and spiritual goes against every biblical abnomition against attatchment to >material things. > >To finish up, I would like to say that there are most definitely irreconcilable >differences between certain Baha'i teachings on the mission of Christ and your personal >view of Scripture. But if we follow analytical theological research over the last few >decades, we may recognize the amazing fact that on many of these issues, it is bringing >results irreconcilable with your position, but remarkably in accord with the teachings of >the Baha'i Faith. I would never expect the Baha'i Faith to conform to your view of >Scripture, especially when there are so many Christians that you feel are equally errant >in their views. As an example, in a previous letter, I related the fact that before I was >a Baha'i, I was a Baptist. I also related that I found the Baha'i interpretation of the >Bible more straightforward and consistent than that of my upbringing. You responded with a >diatribe against my former religion, saying that you could understand how I would have >felt compelled to leave such a ridiculous faith and that you could understand why I would >have had such a bad experience with it. You took the fact that I converted to the Baha'i >Faith and wrongly extrapolated that I had a bad experience with Christianity. Nothing >could be further from the truth. My experience with Christianity was never less than >positive. All of this leads me to believe that you adhere to an extremely exclusivistic >form of fundamentalist Christianity. There is no room for the slightest deviation from >what you perceive to be "right faith", which leads me to question the wisdom of continuing >my discussion with you. I haven't made a decision on this as of yet, but I am considering >discontinuing it. > >John > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:17 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Dale Grider wrote in message <354F966C.76C2@bellsouth.net>... >>Roger says, >>"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >>of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >>ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." >> >>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. > >I rest my case. It's clear to me that further discussion at this time >would be counterproductive. The differences of opinion are too >profound. > >Lets add what Rog snipped to distort the meaning of my response, >>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. WE WERE SPEAKING OF HIS STATION. > >My point was valid. Roger's creative snipping was to make it seem like I >had downplayed the signifigance of Jesus' "teachings and ministry. >Not so. Shame shame Roger. If you are going to quote me, do it in such a >way to represent my intentions please. > >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:18 PM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com Roger Reini wrote in message <3551463e.2142688@news.newsguy.com>... >On Wed, 06 May 1998 03:38:17 GMT, Dale Grider >wrote: > >>>Roger says, >>>"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >>>of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >>>ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." >>> >>>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. >>> >>>I rest my case. It's clear to me that further discussion at this time >>>would be counterproductive. The differences of opinion are too >>>profound. >> >>Lets add what Rog snipped to distort the meaning of my response, >>>But we aren't speaking of His teachings and ministry. WE WERE SPEAKING OF HIS STATION. > >One cannot separate the station of the Manifestation of God from His >teachings and His ministry. By refusing to consider His teachings, >one effectively rejects Him altogether. For it is His teachings and >exhortations which persist. > >I still believe that further discussion would serve no purpose. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 4:26 PM Subject: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com I'm having trouble keeping up with the load of messages of 30 or more on a day. Thanks. Others there would appreciate being able to follow along and participate. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip >Seems to me that rather than trying to determine Covenant Breaking by how *we* >judge people are behaving, we ought to remember Shoghi Effendi's specific >words, which are that no one has the authority to call anyone by that label >except himself and the Master. That's as clear as it gets. And since there >was no time limit set to that statement, nor has he given anyone the authority >to abrogate it, so it stands. >Derrick, my advice to you is ignore it. There are too many wild-eyed fanatics >out there stuck somewhere in the Middle Ages in their thinking. >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: fw & response: Re: [bahai-faith] fw & response: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, May 05, 1998 2:46 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw & response: [bahai-faith] moderators vs censors >I would share the moderator's comments except that AOL seems to have dropped >it from my list of recieved mail. Sorry. >nancy You might want to save special messages like that one.... Don't worry though, there will be others.... Soc.religion.bahai can be counted on in that regard.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:04 AM Subject: fw & response: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, May 04, 1998 9:13 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? >I was born into the faith--my parents were pioneers in the 40's and 50's and I >had the opportunity to grow up surrounded by the Faith and the wonderful >believers. But I drifted away in my teens and early 20's (that's sometimes >what happens when you take things for granted) and I explored other faiths >(which shows how little I understood progressive revelation). I came back >when I was about 24, feeling like a "born again Baha'i." The first thing that >brought me back was the logic of it all--everything Baha'u'llah wrote makes >sense and fits in with the manner in which we are beginning to think as a >species: humanity is one, men and women are equal etc. The next was that the >words of Baha'u'llah spoke to me personally, creating in me a need for the >comfort and the beauty He fills His Tablets with. I have done alot of >comparison shopping; the Baha'i faith was the only one that fir the bill for >me. Now--there is a problem with the *Baha'is* themselves, unfortunately, and >I have chosen to distance myself from the groupings that have been created. I >don't like the antagonism and the self-righteous inquisitional thinking. >However, they'll grow out of that...:) >Nancy I'm not so sure Bahais will grow out of it. The "self-righteous inquisitional thinking" you mention has become an endemic pattern in the Bahai Faith that few have the strength and moral fiber to question or resist.... Bahai "community" life has become based on oppression and intolerance for others' opinions and ideas while appearing always, especially in public, "liberal" and "enlightened." The whole fray over talk.religon.bahai, for more than a year now, reveals quite well the fanaticism that actually exists among the majority of Bahais today.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:20 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith CHRISTOPHER ERIK NASON wrote in message <"lyIdyC.A.3d.o0nT1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >evangelicism and hypocracy. You're probably making the best decision.... I believe your evaluation of the attitudes of many Bahais today is quite accurate, though few will admit it.... What you call evangelicism, I would call fanaticism and extremism. I agree with you that there's plenty of hypocrisy, so much it's appalling.... The Bahai faith is a beautiful dream on paper.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith tricia@glonet.co.nz wrote in message <"eZWjl.A.8GE.bjSU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >> stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >> evangelicism and hypocracy. >> Sincerely, >> Christopher E. Nason > >I am saddened by this "running away" attitude of some believers, it >seems to me that it would be more productive to have shown the >community where it has gone wrong, for how the heck do folks learn >about their actions without having them shown glaringly to them? How can anyone "show" an intolerant, self-righteous "community" where it has gone wrong when they distort and manipulate all information available and twist it to suit themselves? THOUSANDS have left the Bahai faith for the very same reasons given by this person and it's been happening for DECADES.... What saddens me is the way so many Bahais misinterpret this type of decision by other Bahais implying as you do that he or they are "running away" when the truth is they have been DRIVEN away by the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and fanaticism of Bahai "community" life.... >I don't mind if you run away, but God may do. After all it is HIS >KINGDOM now ours, and its YOUR QUALITIES that he is trying to bring >in to the community. And his qualities that many Bahais DRIVE out.... > >Its all up to you of course. > >TeeCee >With Loving Baha'i Greetings > >TeeCee > >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:28 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re Leaving faith At least sent to soc.religion.bahai today, if not posted.... tricia@glonet.co.nz wrote in message <"eZWjl.A.8GE.bjSU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >> stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >> evangelicism and hypocracy. >> Sincerely, >> Christopher E. Nason > >I am saddened by this "running away" attitude of some believers, it >seems to me that it would be more productive to have shown the >community where it has gone wrong, for how the heck do folks learn >about their actions without having them shown glaringly to them? How can anyone "show" an intolerant, self-righteous "community" where it has gone wrong when they distort and manipulate all information available and twist it to suit themselves? THOUSANDS have left the Bahai faith for the very same reasons given by this person and it's been happening for DECADES.... What saddens me is the way so many Bahais misinterpret this type of decision by other Bahais implying as you do that he or they are "running away" when the truth is they have been DRIVEN away by the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and fanaticism of Bahai "community" life.... >I don't mind if you run away, but God may do. After all it is HIS >KINGDOM now ours, and its YOUR QUALITIES that he is trying to bring >in to the community. And his qualities that many Bahais DRIVE out.... > >Its all up to you of course. > >TeeCee >With Loving Baha'i Greetings > >TeeCee > >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:28 AM Subject: Re Leaving faith At least sent to soc.religion.bahai today, if not posted.... tricia@glonet.co.nz wrote in message <"eZWjl.A.8GE.bjSU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >> stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >> evangelicism and hypocracy. >> Sincerely, >> Christopher E. Nason > >I am saddened by this "running away" attitude of some believers, it >seems to me that it would be more productive to have shown the >community where it has gone wrong, for how the heck do folks learn >about their actions without having them shown glaringly to them? How can anyone "show" an intolerant, self-righteous "community" where it has gone wrong when they distort and manipulate all information available and twist it to suit themselves? THOUSANDS have left the Bahai faith for the very same reasons given by this person and it's been happening for DECADES.... What saddens me is the way so many Bahais misinterpret this type of decision by other Bahais implying as you do that he or they are "running away" when the truth is they have been DRIVEN away by the pervasive atmosphere of intolerance and fanaticism of Bahai "community" life.... >I don't mind if you run away, but God may do. After all it is HIS >KINGDOM now ours, and its YOUR QUALITIES that he is trying to bring >in to the community. And his qualities that many Bahais DRIVE out.... > >Its all up to you of course. > >TeeCee >With Loving Baha'i Greetings > >TeeCee > >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:49 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip Roger Reini wrote in message <354FAB6B.77C1D2A9@wwnet.net>... >This issue should be brought to the attention of the local spiritual >assembly in Ogden (if Ogden has an Assembly). Only the Universal House >of Justice has the ability to declare someone to be a Covenant breaker. > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) We (any Bahai with the slightest trace of honesty) all know that many Bahais regularly accuse and denounce other Bahais as proto- or de facto covenant breakers.... It's an established Bahai tradition in many "communities." You can think of a few instances, can't you, Roger? > > >darricke@hotmail.com wrote: >> >> Dear Friends, >> A Baha'i woman in Ogden is spreading a false rumor that I'm a >> Covenant-Breaker. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 07, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip Robert A. Little wrote in message <6ir2re$pg3$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Darrick: > >Please, please, hide the perceived defects of others, and praise their >strengths. I am sure that Robert Henderson would not be damaged if you were >to say this to his face, but you ought not to say these things behind his >back. Many Bahais say all kinds of things behind people's backs.... Are you implying otherwise? Bahais and the BCCA have been known to manipulate entire systems of listservs so that they might plot behind people's backs, with the apparent approval of other Bahais.... > >With Love, > >Robert A. Little >darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6iq7ns$fdb$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>Dear George & Marlena, >> If by treating others badly makes one a Covenant-Breaker, then surely >Robert >>Henderson fits the bill! He's a LYING, hypocritical, UNCLE TOM who uses the >>Faith for his own gain. >>Darrick Evenson >newsreading Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:08 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip Roger Reini wrote in message <35549609.72167538@news.newsguy.com>... >On the other hand, if I ever decided that I never wanted to see any >posts from him again, for whatever reason, I could simply put him in >my newsreader's killfile. Bahai "love"? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:12 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip Roger Reini wrote in message <3555bd6f.80147273@news.newsguy.com>... >>fglaysher wrote: >>We (any Bahai with the slightest trace of honesty) all know that many >>Bahais regularly accuse and denounce other Bahais as proto- or >>de facto covenant breakers.... It's an established Bahai tradition in >>many "communities." >> >>You can think of a few instances, can't you, Roger? > >I recall what I said to you, and it wasn't "I accuse you of breaking >the Covenant." Let's not rehash that issue again. But in Darrick's >case, he is claiming someone is saying precisely that. If that is >indeed happening, the statement is in clear error, for I have seen no >annoucement that he (Darrick) has been declared a CB. > >I find this thread tiring. Let's discuss more pleasant things. What's tiring to me is the endemic fanaticism in the Bahai faith and the unwillingness of Bahais to confront it.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Baha'i Gossip -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 9:26 PM Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip >I dropped out of the group for awhile because I thought I was becoming too >sarcastic and sometimes rude in my replies--something I feel I must work on , >because patience is not one of my virtues. I am always afraid that an >inconsidered reply might hurt someone's feelings, and am sometimes ashamed of >what I have posted, mostly because I didn't feel I had shown enough respect >for the religious beliefs of others. Yet nothing I have said compares to >some of what I have read recently. Hey, people, let's cool off a little. >There really is not reason for mud-slinging and name-calling. We are not to >decide who is or is not a CB, nor should we imply that anyone is, or accept >the statement of someone who "knows more than I do or is informed about such >things" that someone is a CB. Just because someone's beliefs don't >correspond to your own understanding of the Faith (or any other individual's) >does not make that person a Covenant Breaker. Just because someone doesn't >understand certain points of the Faith doesn't make that person a pedophile. >Just because someone quotes something you don't like doesn't make that person >an enemy of the Faith. Please, no more name-calling, accusations, etc... >Didn't Abdul Baha say that we should avoid hurting the feelings of others at >all costs (this is a paraphrase, not a quote). > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:15 AM Subject: Re: Baha'i Gossip If you would, please cc your messages to bahai-faith@makelist.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com zutetflute@aol.com wrote in message <6itn13$i7q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >I dropped out of the group for awhile because I thought I was becoming too >sarcastic and sometimes rude in my replies--something I feel I must work on , >because patience is not one of my virtues. I am always afraid that an >inconsidered reply might hurt someone's feelings, and am sometimes ashamed of >what I have posted, mostly because I didn't feel I had shown enough respect >for the religious beliefs of others. Yet nothing I have said compares to >some of what I have read recently. Hey, people, let's cool off a little. >There really is not reason for mud-slinging and name-calling. We are not to >decide who is or is not a CB, nor should we imply that anyone is, or accept >the statement of someone who "knows more than I do or is informed about such >things" that someone is a CB. Just because someone's beliefs don't >correspond to your own understanding of the Faith (or any other individual's) >does not make that person a Covenant Breaker. Just because someone doesn't >understand certain points of the Faith doesn't make that person a pedophile. >Just because someone quotes something you don't like doesn't make that person >an enemy of the Faith. Please, no more name-calling, accusations, etc... >Didn't Abdul Baha say that we should avoid hurting the feelings of others at >all costs (this is a paraphrase, not a quote). > >Andree > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:21 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Re Leaving faith -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 9:37 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Re Leaving faith >That Baha'is are 'leaving the faith" is only one of the symptoms of the "end," >of which Baha'u'llah wrote (as well as Abdul'Baha and Shoghi Effendi). >"Great, great is the Cause! The hour is approaching when the most great >convulsion will have appeared. I swear by Him Who is the Truth! It shall >cause separation to afflict everyone, even those who circle around Me..." >(Advent of Divine Justice, p. 81). >Abdul'Baha wrote that the Tablet of the Holy Mariner foretells the future and >that we are to take heed of its warnings. A careful reading shows the Crimson >Ark (the Faith) being trampled in the dust by those who profess to believe. >In the Tablet of the Houri, Baha'u'llah writes of the Holy Maiden (the Holy >Spirit) coming to Him and exclaiming that He has no heart (which indicates to >me that He is stating that the cause will become a hollow Faith whose outward >appearance is healthy but which is empty inside)...He also writes in this >Tablet that He has no mother or sisters to mourn for Him...which I understand >to mean the Faith will have been abandoned in favor of the rituals and outward >social life, leaving the true spirit alone, dead, unmourned (because it is not >understood). >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:23 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? ---Original Message----- From: Jeffery Decker To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:08 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? >Dror@rocketmail.com: > >Perhaps I would like to respond. Sometimes I think about my declaration and >the 'why' and feel inspired to write. But perhaps you would introduce >yourself, please? > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG [mailto:FG@hotmail.com] >Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 1:23 AM >To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com >Subject: [bahai-faith] fw Re: why did you choose the bahai faith? > > >fw >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >Dror@rocketmail.com wrote in message <6iig5s$cav$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >>i'm doing a work about the bahai faith. >>i'm focusing on the bahai believers. >>my question to any bahai believer is, why did you choose the bahai faith? >>what attracted you to this faith? >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:43 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith john haukness wrote in message <"AouUJC.A.kFG.k0nU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >Dear Friends: Those of us who know Fredrick, know precisely this is his >stand on the Faith. So what is there to talk about Fredrick, either you >are correct, and this religion has gone to the dogs, or you are >incorrect, and your assumptions are invalid. I don't know you... Nor you me.... Either/or? > >Something we know, the Baha'i Faith is holding it's own currently in >North America, this comes at a time, when most churches are losing >membership. False. We don't know this.... Quite the reverse appears to be the case.... Many Bahais acknowledge enrollment is on the decline or barely keeping up with deaths, withdrawals, and so on.... Actually the Baha'i Faith has grown just a small amount in >the past few decades. Thanks to the fanaticism of the Bahais themselves.... But, the religion is only 150 years old, and The >Guardian and Bahaullah and Abdul Baha, catagorically stated, that there >would be great rejection, before the masses would accept the Baha'i >Faith. So, either, your observations are correct, that the Baha'i Faith >is fanatical, supremist and all of your other many similar observations >I have read about, or you are partially or totally incorrect. Sounds broad enough to cover just about anything.... > >As far as misbehavior, I have never seen Baha'is attack you, Then you've had your eyes and mind closed or haven't been watching carefully.... just not go >along with your assessment. False. Many Bahais went far out of their way to oppose talk.religion.bahai and make sure it was defeated, not once, but twice.... which to me, represents the attack we should >relish, just as The Guardian stated, it will make us stronger, more >united. au revoir john, again In my opinion, the misinterpretation or rhetoric of fanatics justifying their intolerance and suppression of other views than their own.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:46 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re Leaving Faith Sent if not posted to soc.religion.bahai: john haukness wrote in message <"AouUJC.A.kFG.k0nU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >Dear Friends: Those of us who know Fredrick, know precisely this is his >stand on the Faith. So what is there to talk about Fredrick, either you >are correct, and this religion has gone to the dogs, or you are >incorrect, and your assumptions are invalid. I don't know you... Nor you me.... Either/or? > >Something we know, the Baha'i Faith is holding it's own currently in >North America, this comes at a time, when most churches are losing >membership. False. We don't know this.... Quite the reverse appears to be the case.... Many Bahais acknowledge enrollment is on the decline or barely keeping up with deaths, withdrawals, and so on.... Actually the Baha'i Faith has grown just a small amount in >the past few decades. Thanks to the fanaticism of the Bahais themselves.... But, the religion is only 150 years old, and The >Guardian and Bahaullah and Abdul Baha, catagorically stated, that there >would be great rejection, before the masses would accept the Baha'i >Faith. So, either, your observations are correct, that the Baha'i Faith >is fanatical, supremist and all of your other many similar observations >I have read about, or you are partially or totally incorrect. Sounds broad enough to cover just about anything.... > >As far as misbehavior, I have never seen Baha'is attack you, Then you've had your eyes and mind closed or haven't been watching carefully.... just not go >along with your assessment. False. Many Bahais went far out of their way to oppose talk.religion.bahai and make sure it was defeated, not once, but twice.... which to me, represents the attack we should >relish, just as The Guardian stated, it will make us stronger, more >united. au revoir john, again In my opinion, the misinterpretation or rhetoric of fanatics justifying their intolerance and suppression of other views than their own.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:46 AM Subject: Re Leaving Faith Sent if not posted to soc.religion.bahai: john haukness wrote in message <"AouUJC.A.kFG.k0nU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >Dear Friends: Those of us who know Fredrick, know precisely this is his >stand on the Faith. So what is there to talk about Fredrick, either you >are correct, and this religion has gone to the dogs, or you are >incorrect, and your assumptions are invalid. I don't know you... Nor you me.... Either/or? > >Something we know, the Baha'i Faith is holding it's own currently in >North America, this comes at a time, when most churches are losing >membership. False. We don't know this.... Quite the reverse appears to be the case.... Many Bahais acknowledge enrollment is on the decline or barely keeping up with deaths, withdrawals, and so on.... Actually the Baha'i Faith has grown just a small amount in >the past few decades. Thanks to the fanaticism of the Bahais themselves.... But, the religion is only 150 years old, and The >Guardian and Bahaullah and Abdul Baha, catagorically stated, that there >would be great rejection, before the masses would accept the Baha'i >Faith. So, either, your observations are correct, that the Baha'i Faith >is fanatical, supremist and all of your other many similar observations >I have read about, or you are partially or totally incorrect. Sounds broad enough to cover just about anything.... > >As far as misbehavior, I have never seen Baha'is attack you, Then you've had your eyes and mind closed or haven't been watching carefully.... just not go >along with your assessment. False. Many Bahais went far out of their way to oppose talk.religion.bahai and make sure it was defeated, not once, but twice.... which to me, represents the attack we should >relish, just as The Guardian stated, it will make us stronger, more >united. au revoir john, again In my opinion, the misinterpretation or rhetoric of fanatics justifying their intolerance and suppression of other views than their own.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:48 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw [bahai-faith] Whining to strangers -----Original Message----- From: clarence sevdy To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 4:06 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Whining to strangers Why do you spread your own dirty laundry on other peoples N.G.s ? Could you become obsessed with Nichiren Shoshu,Mormons , or some Christian fundamentalist fruitcake group? Are you and Derrick Evanson both part of some nightmarish anti-Baha'i multi-personality thing? Just curious.Enquiring minds,etc..............Clarence Sevdy ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 5:53 AM Subject: Yet more soc.religion.bahai censorship.... -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena To: Teri Rhan Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 1:29 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Leaving Faith (fwd) >Dear Teri, >If you would take the time to read Fred's entire message including the last >line which says: "The Baha'i faith is a beautiful dream on paper..." >you would see that he ended his statement with (...) which indicates to me >and uncompleted thought. This uncompleted thought has relevance to the >subject under discussion ie. leaving the Baha'i faith. Fred's further >explaining would (I feel) indeed further the discussion. >George >-----Original Message----- >From: Teri Rhan >To: geomar >Cc: srb moderators >Date: Thursday, May 07, 1998 9:59 PM >Subject: Re: Leaving Faith (fwd) > > >>Dear George, >>I'm returning your message to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as it >>appears more as personal email and does not further the dicussion on this >>topic. You can contact Fred directly at FG@hotmail.com. >>Thank you for participating, >>Teri Rhan >>trhan@serv.net >>Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai >> >>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 14:33:56 -0700 >>From: George & Marlena >>To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >> >>Dear Frederick, >>Would you please continue with your thought? I am interested in hearing >your >>comments further. You seemed to stop before you were finished. Please go >on. >>george >> >>Frederick Glaysher wrote in message ><"q9z-ED.A.t6.OBdU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>>CHRISTOPHER ERIK NASON wrote in message >>><"lyIdyC.A.3d.o0nT1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>>> I also have to say good-bye to the Baha'i Faith, as I can no longer >>>>stand the supremacist attitudes of many of the members, the >>>>evangelicism and hypocracy. >>> >>> >>>You're probably making the best decision.... I believe your >>>evaluation of the attitudes of many Bahais today is quite >>>accurate, though few will admit it.... >>> >>>What you call evangelicism, I would call fanaticism and >>>extremism. I agree with you that there's plenty of hypocrisy, >>>so much it's appalling.... >>> >>>The Bahai faith is a beautiful dream on paper.... >>> >>>Frederick Glaysher >>>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >>>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>>List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:16 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:17 AM To: talisman Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:19 AM Subject: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:20 AM To: Michael McKenny Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:21 AM To: Ron House Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:21 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:29 AM To: K P Johnson Subject: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm I've reposted your article from Gnosis. I hope it's all right with you. If not, let me know and I'll remove it. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 7:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.h tm -----Original Message----- From: AltWay Newsgroups: soc.culture.pakistan,alt.religion.islam,uk.religion.islam,alt.religion.islam .shia,soc.culture.pakistan.religion,alt.religion.bahai,soc.culture.iranian Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 7:10 AM Subject: Re: Gnarled "logic" in anti-Baha'i polemic >In article <3552140B.36D9240A@geocities.com>, Abir Majid > wrote: > " There are many prophecies in the Bible about many time periods, > including the Islamic dispensation. In my previous post I addressed what > you brought up from Matthew 24 (and not the prophecies in the book of > Revelation, which are very interesting. > > And while prophecies have not in themselves been sufficient proof for > all people, as each individual sees in them what he/she wants to see, > the prophecies associated with the number 1260 are very interesting (to > some people). Here I will mention a few prophecies associated with this > number from Islamic sources as well, for your consideration (without too > much of my own comments if I can help it.)......... > >Altway :- >I knew about some of these, and they are very interesting. But I think all >this is irrelevant. I am not really concerned with the exact number. > >You cannot apply the Abjad system to decipher something unless you think >that that system has been used to encode it. Nor can you mix up the numbers >derived by applying the Abjad system with the meaning of "Day". The Day >refers to a cycle of events and could be 1000 years, 50,000 or 35000 years >or any other period. > >It seems you are introducing irrelevancies. It is true that the various >prophecies have been interpreted in different ways by people to support >their own previously acquired conclusions, but those who made the prophecies >saw something and did so for a purpose. One could attempt to find this >without trying to fit them to anything. > >Abir :- > (Could the two "prophesying for 1260 years clothed in sackcloth" be > Muhammad (SAAWS) and Ali (R) the Prince of the Faithful who was like a > brother to the Prophet ("like Aaron was to Moses") been the two?) God > knows best. > >Altway :- >There is absolutely no evidence for suggesting that Ali is a Prophet equal >with Muhammad (S.A.W). I, therefore, reject this interpretation. > >Re:- verse 32:5 ( Day=1000 years) compare verse 70:4 (Day=50,000 years). >There are thus various cycles, and one may consist of 50 of the others. >There is a descent and an ascent. Forces entering the earth cause >transformations which lead to evolution or ascent during this period. >Nothing is said about degeneration. > >Abir :- > Based on this (and other chapters of the Bible), several Christian > groups and denominations waiting for the second coming of Christ, > calculated the date of the Return of Christ to the year 1844 A.D. > The year 1844 A.D. in the Gregorian calendar was the year 1260 A.H. > >Altway :- >Around that time a number of religions and sects were formed - Mormons, 7th >Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Bahai, Ahmadiyas and several in the Far >East. Others have continued forming ever since. All of them were based on >claims to revelations. But each regards itself as true and all the others as >false imposters. One could interpret all this as the pouring forth of the >divine spirit, a regeneration of the consciousness of spiritual things. I >find it very difficult to dismiss all as illusions. But I do think that in >the founders of these religions and sects inspiration is mixed with illusion >because they have not been able to separate the two, not being true >prophets, and prophethood having ended. > >There is also, today, a slow but steady regeneration of islam, and one would >have hoped that the establishment of a state on Islamic principles in Iran >would have been the beginning of the establishment of a spreading righteous >"kingdom" on earth. Hence my disappointment to learn of unislamic practices >in Iran. Though this does not appear to be case at the moment, it is still >possible that things will change for the better. > >However, I may be wrong. > >The only certainty I am aware of is that the Quran is true guidance, and >those who study, understand and stick to its guidance are on the true path >whether or not others are. All those who teach the same message are also on >the true path. > >H.S.Aziz > > >-- > _ ___ _ _____________________________________________ >|_| | | | | |_| \ / / >| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... For more info Read "The Alternative Way" >_______________________/ ... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz >______________________/ ... haziz@argonet.co.uk > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 12:41 PM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip fwFrederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip >"The Guardian, like the master before Him, has not considered it advisable to >as yet permit ANY PERSON OR ASSEMBLY to put another person out of the cause of >God...no one but himself can pronounce a person to be in that diseased >condition we call "Covenant breaking." (US Baha'i News No 220 June 1949) > >It is not appropriate for anyone to, after becoming aware of this statement, >clear and explicit as it is, to then proceed to change, distort and >reinterpret so as to conform to new situations which may exist, even if that >seems like a logical step at the time. >None of the leaders of any of the Baha'i communities can substantiate their >claims by any EXPLICIT Holy Text in the Baha'i writings. Those hundreds who >are now considered "outcasts" and "Covenant Breakers" by the followers of the >various groups could potentially form what was known in the 17th century as a >"protestant" group. How can there be a New World Order based on such an >unstable foundation? The Hands called the Guardianship "bada," meaning that >God had changed His plans and we did not need the Guardian, BUT DID HE????(and >that's a whole other discussion). >If no one has the authority to call anyone else a CB, whether it be a group or >assembly or an individual doing the naming, then the answer to George's >question about how to treat individuals who are behaving like Covenant >breakers, is to follow Abdul'Baha's advice: speak to them in a courteous and >polite way, and if they will not listen, walk away (Christ was more blunt: >don't throw pearls before pigs). >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com George & Marlena wrote in message <6j0pl8$gkj$1@news.eli.net>... >While I do not profess to understand any of the ins and outs of running a >news group, I have noticed a thing or two about using the Cc: function you >requested us to use. #1 My post gets posted very fast, which must mean a >faster reply time for everyone. I've noticed that too. Makelist.com is almost immediate in posting the messages. Much better than the coollist.com we we're using before. #2 All of the posts that I get are sent by >the same person to my computer, Which makes it impossible for me to scan the >posts by author and keep track of who has posted what. I'm assuming you mean me. If that's what you mean, it's only because I've forwarded the message (unless occasionally it's a message I myself actually post). The people on makelist.com for the most part have no access whatsoever to the alt.* hierarchy. If I or someone else doesn't forward (fw) their message from makelist.com, they have no way of contributing to discusson on alt.religion.bahai unlike people who have access only to the Big 8 hierarchy, i.e., talk.religion.misc, and can post simultaneously to talk.* and alt.* even though they may only be able to read the talk.* hiearchy. Sorry they all have my name on them but I can figure out any other way to do it. Do you have any ideas? #3 A question: If I >reply to a post and Cc it, the Cced post is the one that gets posted (I >think) Can I just send he reply only to bahai-faith@makelist.com without >sending it through my news server, i.e. alt.religion.bahai? You sure can. makelist.com is set up so that anyone, even non-subscribers to the list, can post to it. An important feature for everyone to understand. You don't have to subscribe to it to allow the people their access to your discussion on alt.religion.bahai or elsewhere or you can post exclusively to bahai-faith@makelist.com. >Thanks. >George Thanks for posting or cc-ing to makelist.com! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:53 AM Subject: Re: Please "cc" bahai-faith@makelist.com George & Marlena wrote in message <6j0pl8$gkj$1@news.eli.net>... >While I do not profess to understand any of the ins and outs of running a >news group, I have noticed a thing or two about using the Cc: function you >requested us to use. #1 My post gets posted very fast, which must mean a >faster reply time for everyone. I've noticed that too. Makelist.com is almost immediate in posting the messages. Much better than the coollist.com we we're using before. #2 All of the posts that I get are sent by >the same person to my computer, Which makes it impossible for me to scan the >posts by author and keep track of who has posted what. I'm assuming you mean me. If that's what you mean, it's only because I've forwarded the message (unless occasionally it's a message I myself actually post). The people on makelist.com for the most part have no access whatsoever to the alt.* hierarchy. If I or someone else doesn't forward (fw) their message from makelist.com, they have no way of contributing to discusson on alt.religion.bahai unlike people who have access only to the Big 8 hierarchy, i.e., talk.religion.misc, and can post simultaneously to talk.* and alt.* even though they may only be able to read the talk.* hiearchy. Sorry they all have my name on them but I can figure out any other way to do it. Do you have any ideas? #3 A question: If I >reply to a post and Cc it, the Cced post is the one that gets posted (I >think) Can I just send he reply only to bahai-faith@makelist.com without >sending it through my news server, i.e. alt.religion.bahai? You sure can. makelist.com is set up so that anyone, even non-subscribers to the list, can post to it. An important feature for everyone to understand. You don't have to subscribe to it to allow the people their access to your discussion on alt.religion.bahai or elsewhere or you can post exclusively to bahai-faith@makelist.com. >Thanks. >George Thanks for posting or cc-ing to makelist.com! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:55 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 11:27 PM Subject: Re: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip >Dear Marlena & George: > >(I just thought that Marlena ought to get equal time now and then!) > >You can know them by their fruits. > >If an individual focuses on the positive, speaks with love, looks with love >and acts with love, then that person is a loving person. A person who is the >cause of unity and accord, is a follower of God, no matter what they call >themselves. > >If a one speaks of the faults of others, sows bitterness and discontent, and >focues on his/her self, then that individual does not know much about God >and His Teachings. Whether a self-proclaimed Jew, Christian, Muslim, >Buddhist, Baha'i or whatever, it matters not - that person who breaks the >twin laws of love and unity, and who calls him/herself a believer, is a >follower of their own ego, not God. They are the enemies of the Cause of >God. (excerpted from 'Abdu'l-Baha', in Stars of the West, vol. VI, 1919) > >It is the former I wish to associate with, and the latter I wish to avoid. > >The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi Rabbani used to sign his >letters, "Your true brother", and that is what I hope for, to truly be your >brother, George and Marlena. > >Robert A. Little > >George & Marlena wrote in message <6j09kd$8e2$1@news.eli.net>... > >(deleted) > >The same rules apply as to how I entend to treat all >>persons on line. I will avoid being drawn into contentious or disputatious >>situations and speak to them in a courteous and polite way, and if they >will >>not listen, walk away. >>That does not mean, of course, that I can not voice my own opinion. >>Post on! >>George >> >(deleted) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35531E11.417E@bellsouth.net>... >Roger says, >"One cannot separate the station of the Manifestation of God from His >teachings and His ministry. By refusing to consider His teachings, >one effectively rejects Him altogether. For it is His teachings and >exhortations which persist." > > Obviously one can be speaking specifically of only Jesus station in >terms of prophecy and Scriptural indications that lie OUTSIDE His actual >teachings recorded in Scripture, and not at all be "refusing to consider >His teachings". In the context of my ongoing discussion here, a comment >like that is a blind refutation of the weighty consideration I have >presented in consideration of His teachings. > Let's keep in mind that Roger's comment that prompted me to cite the >differentiation between Jesus' "teachings and ministry" and His >"station" stemmed from Roger's earlier comment, > >"At no time have I been trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >of His Holiness Christ. For if I were, I would be disproving the >ministry and teachings of every Manifestation of God." > > My comment in response was to observe that Roger fails to distinguish >that those "teachings" such as Baha'is accept of Jesus are still in >rejection of His Scripturally proclaimed Station as God the Son. Our >discussion had been over the Baha'i view of His Station.We hadn't been >discussing His teachings at that point in the discussion and, if I >recall, John Noland was reprimanding my use of prophecy. > > In actuality, Roger is wrong when he says, ""At no time have I been >trying to disprove the ministry and teachings >of His Holiness Christ." when he refutes Jesus' "teaching" on who He was >as Messiah. > >Dale >The Fireside Letters, >https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht ml ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fwFrederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Robert A. Little wrote in message <6j0f10$5m8$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >I am reminded of the long distant past, when the most learned of Christian >scholars discussed heatedly: "How many angels can dance on the head of a >pin?" > >They were serious, as are you. But Dale. I ask you: If the fruit is good, >then what about the tree? > >Roger Reini has been patient, loving and gentle, has shown grace and >courtesy week after week. Do you think he demonstrates the love of God? He >has never attacked you or your beliefs, always tried to see your point of >view, and to respond to you honestly and lovingly. > >I think, Dale, that Roger demonstrates the power of God to change humans >into luminous beings. He may not be an angel, and may not be able to dance >very well (?), but, hey, nobodys perfect. > >Hoping you are well, Dale, > >Robert A. Little > > >Dale Grider wrote in message <35531E11.417E@bellsouth.net>... > >(deleted) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 7:59 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale's ongoing discussion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35531ED0.3B96@bellsouth.net>... >To: "John Noland" >re:The "John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1" thread > > John's current series of 3 responses are ones that I want to pull back >into the context of what he and I have already said, and, as always, >stay close to Scripture (the source) in considering. I think John is >sidestepping the facts surrounding the issues and the Scriptural >evidence we have already discussed. That is, I realize, a serious >accusation. But, since this seemed to be the case in all three of his >responses, it likewise became apparent that the general theme of my >response would need to be one confronting comments that seemed to me, >very evasive. > Of course, when discussing differences in belief one has to accept the >reality of what psychologists term "cognitive dissonance". Sometimes it >doesn't matter if you definitively list historical primary sources >exhaustively to demonstrate that someone's assumptions are mistakenly >misrepresenting history in a way that gives it a biased slant. People >will tend to often believe what they want to, even after being shown >that they are wrong, in black and white. So, I will put John's comments >into a perspective that tests them by those primary historical sources >I have already shared, and see if they line up. > > John opens saying, > >"It's ironic that I went out of my way to try and use objective source >material from well-respected Christian authors and objective historical >writers to try and avoid being accused of being a revisionist. You made >the accusation anyway." > > John, then let me more clearly summarize what I think your "history" >boils down to. According to the primary sources I shared with you, you >definitively presented misinformation from either inaccurate secondary >sources and/or selectively limited information that distorted the >complete picture. And, you elaborated upon the faulty or incomplete >information from the assumed bias of your own Baha'i perspective. Blame >need not necessarily have anything to do with it. Your argument was >invalid for it was based upon wrong or partial historical information >that you felt ultimately supported your Baha'i perspective on Christian >doctrine. > > For example, you next say, > > >"The point of the historical section was to demonstrate three things. > 1. Early Christians had no concept of the Holy Trinity as presented in >today's Christian Church. But, more importantly 2. Early Christians >believed Christ was subordinate to the Father. and then to >3. Trace the development of the Holy Trinity and deification of Christ >as an equal part of the Godhead into official doctrine. PERIOD. It is >obvious to me now that I didn't make these facts clear in my preface, >but I believe it's shown by the text to be my clear intent. I learned a >lot from doing the historical section, and at the very least it forced >you to at least look at it. Whether you agree with me or not, I'd say >mission accomplished." > > Let's see how "The point of the historical section" stacks up with what >has already been shared in this discussion. Because the historical >primary sources I shared with you were certainly "facts" that are >"clear". > >John says, > "The point of the historical section was to demonstrate... > 1) Early Christians had <<>> concept of the Holy Trinity >as presented in today's Christian Church." > >But Athenagoras (about 177 AD) says, > > Intercession on Behalf of the Saints, 10 > "... God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit..." > >And Justin Martyr (110-166 AD) professes, > > Dialogue With Trypho, 48 > > "...He preexisted as the Son of the Creator of things, <<God>>>, and that He was born a man by the Virgin." > > Thus your argument is invalid on point 1. The Early Church, as >previously shared, not only had a concept of Trinitarian doctrine, but, >recognizing that they held that Jesus was fully God, we must concede >that based upon just this one established concept, we can know with >certainty that they necessarily had a multi person doctrinal outlook for >the nature of God, not a "Father oneness" concept at all. Thus they were >very much in line with contemporary Christian doctrine on God's nature >and Jesus' deity. > >John says, > "The point of the historical section was to demonstrate... > 2) Early Christians believed Christ was subordinate to the Father. > >But Origin (185-254) says, > > Fundamental Doctrines 1. pref. 2-4; 1.2.1; 4.4.1 > > "Although He was God, He took flesh; and having been made man, He >remained what He was, God". > > So, what's your point John? You seem to want to say that early >Christian's view of Jesus as being "subordinate" to the Father proves >that they thought of Him as less than God. But we find that His >"subordination" to the Father is an aspect in keeping with the Christian >doctrine of Jesus' FULL deity that is common to both the Early >Christian's belief AND CONTEMPORARY Christian doctrine, both of which >obviously feel that HE was still FULLY GOD. As I have pointed out, in >this line of argument you selectively pick only the passages that reveal >His submissive humanity, and use them to paint a one sided Baha'i >version of Jesus' Station that ignores the other Scriptural side >revealing His deity. Your observation is irrelevant because Christian >doctrine has always recognized the submissive human aspect of Jesus. We >have always believed that He was FULLY (perfect) man, as well as FULLY >God. > >John says, > "The point of the historical section was to demonstrate... > 3)the development of the Holy Trinity and deification of Christ as >an equal part of the Godhead into official doctrine." > >But Justin Martyr (110-166 AD) openly proclaims, > >First Apology, 63 > "...the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God >and is God." > >And Irenaeus (120-202 AD) preaches, > >A. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.10.1 > > "In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and >King..." > B. Irenaeus Against Heresies, 3.19.1-2 > > "...<<>> God and Lord and Eternal >King and Only Begotten and Incarnate Word....The Scriptures would not >have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like everyone >else, He were mere man." > > Whatever formalized "development" took place to face specific heresies, >the core concepts were ALWAYS there John. You paint that formalization >process falsely as if it were a creative distortion of what the Early >Church believed. The primary sources defy that assertion. > > I submit then John, that the "point of the historical section" of your >letter was simply wrong. The early Church already held to the core >beliefs that are inherent in Trinitarian doctrine and the full deity of >Jesus. You seem to have dismissed or ignored the early Church Father's >own words from the primary sources I provided in a continuing vain >attempt to show that Trinitarian doctrine and the deity of Jesus was >somehow a latter aberration against what the early Church believed??? >Why would you continue at this point to do that other than by way of >"cognitive dissonance"? You say, "I learned a lot from doing the >historical section". But it should have been immediately apparent that >what you "learned" about Christian doctrinal development was wrong? >Ignatius, Polycarp, Origen... etc., etc. beg to differ! "Mission >accomplished", you say. I don't see how??? I certainly wouldn't be >satisfied if I were on your side of the discussion at this point, >considering the facts presented? > >John says, > >"When we talk about the Holy Trinity, we say it is made up of three >distinct beings or persons that form one God, with each of the three >persons being of equal status. When you declare that one of those >persons is subordinate at all times to another, you are no longer >talking about the Holy Trinity." > > That statement is just wrong. It is wrong just as it is with respect to >the fact that the Father is not less than God because He does not Judge, >even though God surely judges. And that factual observation also >demonstrates that the Son is certainly not "subordinate at all times". >He judges, and not the Father. > >Nevertheless you insist, > > "Subordination is more than an issue of authority in the Godhead, it's >the crux of the relationship between the Son and the Father and in my >view the deification of Christ." > > Then you have no legitimately reasonable justification for the >Scriptural side of Jesus that PERSONALLY attributes deity to Him? Then, >by association, you accuse Jesus of blasphemy when He dares to suggest >that He can give eternal life, "to whom He is pleased to give it". We >know and confess this as a mystery. This you cannot accept. That is >indeed your decision. But you cannot distort the clear intention of >Scripture so as to make God's revelation fit your human understanding of >what is possible for Him. > >You say, > > "It is the belief that God the Father is the ultimate authority in all >things, except where He freely chooses to give away that authority." > > But in Jesus that authority is not just transferred to a "human soul" >(your designation for the person of Jesus) . The Father agrees to allow >that it belong to a DIFFERENT but ALSO "uncreated", "eternal" person, >who "created all that has been created", ...God! > > John continues, > >"It doesn't matter whether early Christians called Christ God or not, >conceptually they did not believe that God the Son was equal to God the >Father and therefore could not possibly have conceived of the Holy >Trinity as presented in today's church." > > John says here that no matter what they said they believed (and >reading the quotations again one finds them dramatically clear), he has >the right to completely change it to fit in with his beliefs anyway! >That is an amazing statement! Obviously it matters a lot; 1) that they >considered Jesus as FULLY being God and said so in no uncertain terms. >And 2) that John's elaborate "history" and assumptions drawn from it was >based upon the fallacious assumption that they did not. John tries to >create his own unmet prerequisite for deific "equality" for Jesus based >upon differences in authority within the Godhead that have always been >recognized by the Church, and Scripture. He ignores what the Church >fathers said and builds his own skewed logic that ignores what they said >they believed, and superimposes his ideas upon them in opposition to >their definitive professions!. His logic would tell me likewise that I >"cannot" believe that Jesus is God, even if I say so, because I >recognize (like the Early Church Fathers did) that Jesus can be seen >acting according to aspects of submission to the Father. Yet I do. So >did the Early Church Fathers according to their clear words of faith. > >"...<<>> God and Lord... > > As I have argued, there are TWO sides to Jesus' station that must be >considered. His deity is recognized in those things that I demonstrated >(including their own words) that even the earliest Church Father's >understood from Scripture. Christ, for example, is a person "uncreated" >and "eternal" (as John himself reveals when he asserts, "Baha'is believe >that there is only one Christ. Throughout <<>> there has >always been, and will ever be, only one Christ - <<>>, >unchanging, indivisible, peerless and incomparable. His greatness is ><<>> beyond human comprehension."). Thus, it automatically >follows that there MUST be a multi person Nature for God. God cannot be >"one" in "person" if what JOHN said about the Christ is true. He is >certainly one in being, but more than one in person. > >John ends this letter saying, > >"Our beliefs on the Holy Ghost are too similar to argue about." > > Scripture portrays the Holy Ghost as a "person", distinct from the Son >and Father. The Holy Spirit is the third person in the Trinity for He is >fully God. He is eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, has a will, and can >speak. He is alive. The Holy Ghost is the active agent personally >responsible for enlightening the prophets and is the ONLY person against >whom an "unforgivable" sin can be committed. He can be "grieved". Thus, >the Holy Ghost must be the third person of a triune Godhead that is one >in being of perfect unified agreement. Now how close are we John to the >Baha'i Holy Ghost John? > >In Christ, by the Spirit, In the Glory of the Father, >Dale > >The Fireside Letters; URL, >https://personal.sdf.bellsouth.net/sdf/h/o/howdybud/FS%20website/index%20.ht ml ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Leaving the Faith Bobcharnes wrote in message <"VHDezB.A.1TD.Z1yU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... But in the >meantime, many are hovering on the fringes of community life, wondering what to >do with their feelings and thoughts, after trying seemingly everything possible >to make people aware of certain difficult but important truths. The answer is clear: Keep them to yourselves! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:10 AM Subject: Re: leaving the Faith provi@snet.net wrote in message <"vTZIkC.A.EYD.w8yU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >You really never LEAVE your love for Baha'u'llah - you do leave the >Baha'is behind though - and that definitely is the difference. Can you share with us what you mean by leaving the Bahais behind? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"JSgW1D.A.3MD.kryU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... I wrote: >>The Bahai faith is a beautiful dream on paper.... > > >The Baha'i Faith isn't just "a beautiful dream", it is the Faith of God >renewed for this new Age. As such, its forward march is unstoppable. That's the claim or theory but I don't see it as a reality.... Bahais have done a very effective job of stopping its forward march.... >According to Shoghi Effendi, the only influence that its detractors can >have, ultimately, is a positive one -- that of purifying the Faith of >unwholesome elements and of kindling the fire of faith in the hearts of >its ardent supporters: This interpretation is part of the problem, i.e., anyone who says anything other than the most predictable and mundane must be a miscreant.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:45 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith William Collins wrote in message <"ti6gJB.A.JhD.IVzU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... This is no less true >of those who find their meaning in endless criticism of Baha'i >institutions and of committed believers. The context within which you set any kind of criticism or opinion other than what you think justifiable and appropriate obscures the issues that cause the criticism in the first place. An approach employed by many Bahais.... And if those who hold to >extremes are committed to continuing in those >directions, the end results are retarded growth of the community, and/or >the withdrawal of individuals or application of >sanctions to them. As is your blaming the individuals or victims.... >It appears to me to be an unhealthy pattern in anyone's life to fix upon >discontent, and then to be consumed with communicating >that discontent to others - especially to those with whom one is willing >to be continually angry. Abdu'l-Baha himself said that angry can serve the good.... There is such a phrase in English, "righteous anger," for wrongs suffered unjustly, wrongs that those who care about the Bahai Teachings ought to want to see corrected if they have any sense of justice.... If the Baha'i community, its >institutions, and the believers are as hypocritical, fanatical, >ungenerous, misguided and critical as portrayed by many of those >who post here, then why waste the precious days of your short lives >mired in lashing out at the them? Why not find something >else more fulfilling? Again, the typical Bahai approach.... Drive out or banish anyone who doesn't conform or agree with prevailing opinion.... This opinion also fails to perceive that there is much of importance the Bahai Faith needs to learn from many of its critics or voices of conscience.... The only other alternative is to arise and model >for others the kind of Baha'i life you think Baha'is should >lead, rather than telling the Baha'is how bad they are. Being >constantly possessed of a critical spirit is self-destructive. The Voice in the Wilderness is usually the one humankind needs the most.... The Bahai Faith is no different.... > >In the cyberworld that has opened up the possibility for people to put >all of their immediate and unprocessed feelings up in >print, it might also prove useful for those who post in response to the >naysayers to ponder a few things. Does the person who >blames the Baha'i institutions, community and believers for various >failures actually want a dialogue, or simply a confirmation >that he's right? Perhaps the best response to the angry words and >criticism is no written response at all, but a continued >demonstration of wisdom, and a willingness to follow the lived example >of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who loved everyone but did not >legitimize everyone's actions and words. The answer of many Bahais: ostracism.... > >Since the founding of various internet discussion groups a few years >ago, I have observed them carefully, both in the Baha'i >context, and in the context of other religions and disciplines. Except >for very tightly controlled discussion groups (and >soc-religion.bahai is not so tightly controlled), In my opinion, it is tightly controlled. See my new web site, alt.religon.bahai, or bahai-faith@makelist.com for evidence and discussion to that effect.... there is always a >significant percentage of participants whose purpose is criticism, >argumentation, negation and the expression of discontent. I would have to say that among Bahais there are always individuals willing to justify the most shameful abuse of the Teachings and ethics as long as they think it willl further the growth of the Faith.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:46 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re Leaving Faith At least sent to soc.religon.bahai if not posted.... William Collins wrote in message <"ti6gJB.A.JhD.IVzU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... This is no less true >of those who find their meaning in endless criticism of Baha'i >institutions and of committed believers. The context within which you set any kind of criticism or opinion other than what you think justifiable and appropriate obscures the issues that cause the criticism in the first place. An approach employed by many Bahais.... And if those who hold to >extremes are committed to continuing in those >directions, the end results are retarded growth of the community, and/or >the withdrawal of individuals or application of >sanctions to them. As is your blaming the individuals or victims.... >It appears to me to be an unhealthy pattern in anyone's life to fix upon >discontent, and then to be consumed with communicating >that discontent to others - especially to those with whom one is willing >to be continually angry. Abdu'l-Baha himself said that angry can serve the good.... There is such a phrase in English, "righteous anger," for wrongs suffered unjustly, wrongs that those who care about the Bahai Teachings ought to want to see corrected if they have any sense of justice.... If the Baha'i community, its >institutions, and the believers are as hypocritical, fanatical, >ungenerous, misguided and critical as portrayed by many of those >who post here, then why waste the precious days of your short lives >mired in lashing out at the them? Why not find something >else more fulfilling? Again, the typical Bahai approach.... Drive out or banish anyone who doesn't conform or agree with prevailing opinion.... This opinion also fails to perceive that there is much of importance the Bahai Faith needs to learn from many of its critics or voices of conscience.... The only other alternative is to arise and model >for others the kind of Baha'i life you think Baha'is should >lead, rather than telling the Baha'is how bad they are. Being >constantly possessed of a critical spirit is self-destructive. The Voice in the Wilderness is usually the one humankind needs the most.... The Bahai Faith is no different.... > >In the cyberworld that has opened up the possibility for people to put >all of their immediate and unprocessed feelings up in >print, it might also prove useful for those who post in response to the >naysayers to ponder a few things. Does the person who >blames the Baha'i institutions, community and believers for various >failures actually want a dialogue, or simply a confirmation >that he's right? Perhaps the best response to the angry words and >criticism is no written response at all, but a continued >demonstration of wisdom, and a willingness to follow the lived example >of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who loved everyone but did not >legitimize everyone's actions and words. The answer of many Bahais: ostracism.... > >Since the founding of various internet discussion groups a few years >ago, I have observed them carefully, both in the Baha'i >context, and in the context of other religions and disciplines. Except >for very tightly controlled discussion groups (and >soc-religion.bahai is not so tightly controlled), In my opinion, it is tightly controlled. See my new web site, alt.religon.bahai, or bahai-faith@makelist.com for evidence and discussion to that effect.... there is always a >significant percentage of participants whose purpose is criticism, >argumentation, negation and the expression of discontent. I would have to say that among Bahais there are always individuals willing to justify the most shameful abuse of the Teachings and ethics as long as they think it willl further the growth of the Faith.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:46 AM Subject: Re Leaving Faith At least sent to soc.religon.bahai if not posted.... William Collins wrote in message <"ti6gJB.A.JhD.IVzU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... This is no less true >of those who find their meaning in endless criticism of Baha'i >institutions and of committed believers. The context within which you set any kind of criticism or opinion other than what you think justifiable and appropriate obscures the issues that cause the criticism in the first place. An approach employed by many Bahais.... And if those who hold to >extremes are committed to continuing in those >directions, the end results are retarded growth of the community, and/or >the withdrawal of individuals or application of >sanctions to them. As is your blaming the individuals or victims.... >It appears to me to be an unhealthy pattern in anyone's life to fix upon >discontent, and then to be consumed with communicating >that discontent to others - especially to those with whom one is willing >to be continually angry. Abdu'l-Baha himself said that angry can serve the good.... There is such a phrase in English, "righteous anger," for wrongs suffered unjustly, wrongs that those who care about the Bahai Teachings ought to want to see corrected if they have any sense of justice.... If the Baha'i community, its >institutions, and the believers are as hypocritical, fanatical, >ungenerous, misguided and critical as portrayed by many of those >who post here, then why waste the precious days of your short lives >mired in lashing out at the them? Why not find something >else more fulfilling? Again, the typical Bahai approach.... Drive out or banish anyone who doesn't conform or agree with prevailing opinion.... This opinion also fails to perceive that there is much of importance the Bahai Faith needs to learn from many of its critics or voices of conscience.... The only other alternative is to arise and model >for others the kind of Baha'i life you think Baha'is should >lead, rather than telling the Baha'is how bad they are. Being >constantly possessed of a critical spirit is self-destructive. The Voice in the Wilderness is usually the one humankind needs the most.... The Bahai Faith is no different.... > >In the cyberworld that has opened up the possibility for people to put >all of their immediate and unprocessed feelings up in >print, it might also prove useful for those who post in response to the >naysayers to ponder a few things. Does the person who >blames the Baha'i institutions, community and believers for various >failures actually want a dialogue, or simply a confirmation >that he's right? Perhaps the best response to the angry words and >criticism is no written response at all, but a continued >demonstration of wisdom, and a willingness to follow the lived example >of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who loved everyone but did not >legitimize everyone's actions and words. The answer of many Bahais: ostracism.... > >Since the founding of various internet discussion groups a few years >ago, I have observed them carefully, both in the Baha'i >context, and in the context of other religions and disciplines. Except >for very tightly controlled discussion groups (and >soc-religion.bahai is not so tightly controlled), In my opinion, it is tightly controlled. See my new web site, alt.religon.bahai, or bahai-faith@makelist.com for evidence and discussion to that effect.... there is always a >significant percentage of participants whose purpose is criticism, >argumentation, negation and the expression of discontent. I would have to say that among Bahais there are always individuals willing to justify the most shameful abuse of the Teachings and ethics as long as they think it willl further the growth of the Faith.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 09, 1998 8:48 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Baha'i Gossip >"The Guardian, like the master before Him, has not considered it advisable to >as yet permit ANY PERSON OR ASSEMBLY to put another person out of the cause of >God...no one but himself can pronounce a person to be in that diseased >condition we call "Covenant breaking." (US Baha'i News No 220 June 1949) > >It is not appropriate for anyone to, after becoming aware of this statement, >clear and explicit as it is, to then proceed to change, distort and >reinterpret so as to conform to new situations which may exist, even if that >seems like a logical step at the time. >None of the leaders of any of the Baha'i communities can substantiate their >claims by any EXPLICIT Holy Text in the Baha'i writings. Those hundreds who >are now considered "outcasts" and "Covenant Breakers" by the followers of the >various groups could potentially form what was known in the 17th century as a >"protestant" group. How can there be a New World Order based on such an >unstable foundation? The Hands called the Guardianship "bada," meaning that >God had changed His plans and we did not need the Guardian, BUT DID HE????(and >that's a whole other discussion). >If no one has the authority to call anyone else a CB, whether it be a group or >assembly or an individual doing the naming, then the answer to George's >question about how to treat individuals who are behaving like Covenant >breakers, is to follow Abdul'Baha's advice: speak to them in a courteous and >polite way, and if they will not listen, walk away (Christ was more blunt: >don't throw pearls before pigs). >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:44 AM To: h-bahai Subject: New site: Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Permit me to mention I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:57 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <355424AC.6835@bellsouth.net>... >Robert says, >"Roger Reini has been patient, loving and gentle, has shown grace and >courtesy week after week." > >I don't see that as characterizing Roger's tone at all Robert. But then, >I expect you are a bit biased. At any rate, your comment itself is >somewhat passive aggressive, assuming as it does that I haven't been as >"loving and gentle" as Roger. The fruit is in the truth. The fruit is >not is false religion. Now if we cannot discuss issues without this ad >hominum kind of accusation being made, I think the fruit being displayed >is not honest. Let's have honest fruit that faces and discusses issues >and leaves off with the passive aggressive tyranny trick. I continue to >discover that Baha'i religion desecrates Jesus Christ. I am willing to >discuss the issues but, just like you, I can only believe from the >viewpoint of where I am. You and Roger have faith that what you promote >is truth. So do I. We both feel it will stand the test of "independent >investigation". So let's get on with the investigation and leave off >with the "your not being nice enough" ad hominums. I wish to discuss >issues that you believe I am wrong over no more or less than I believe >you are. I have certainly shouldered my share of Baha'i hostility. I can >take it. It's worth conducting the investigation and hashing out issues >that are important. You need to be big enough to do the same. >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:57 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Roger Reini wrote in message <355469AC.A0BBED35@wwnet.net>... >Dale Grider wrote: >> >> Robert says, >> "Roger Reini has been patient, loving and gentle, has shown grace and >> courtesy week after week." >> >> I don't see that as characterizing Roger's tone at all Robert. > >With all due respect, I do believe that I have been courteous to you and >to the others on this newsgroup. While I have disagreed with many of >your interpretations of the teachings of Christ and Baha'u'llah, I have >never, to the best of my recall, ridiculed you or your beliefs. If you >feel I have, please contact me privately. > >> But then, >> I expect you are a bit biased. At any rate, your comment itself is >> somewhat passive aggressive, assuming as it does that I haven't been as >> "loving and gentle" as Roger. The fruit is in the truth. The fruit is >> not is false religion. Now if we cannot discuss issues without this ad >> hominum kind of accusation being made, I think the fruit being displayed >> is not honest. Let's have honest fruit that faces and discusses issues >> and leaves off with the passive aggressive tyranny trick. I continue to >> discover that Baha'i religion desecrates Jesus Christ. > >Whereas I believe that to be the opposite of the truth. Nowhere in the >writings of Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha and the Guardian will you find >anything but praise for His Holiness Christ, the Spirit of God. > >> I am willing to >> discuss the issues but, just like you, I can only believe from the >> viewpoint of where I am. You and Roger have faith that what you promote >> is truth. So do I. We both feel it will stand the test of "independent >> investigation". So let's get on with the investigation and leave off >> with the "your not being nice enough" ad hominums. I wish to discuss >> issues that you believe I am wrong over no more or less than I believe >> you are. I have certainly shouldered my share of Baha'i hostility. > >Disagreement, yes. Hostility, no (IMHO). > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:58 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Robert A. Little wrote in message <6j2vop$pgr$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Dale: > >If you were to characterize the essence of the Teachings of Christ in one >word, what would that be? > >I choose Love. > >I think Roger has been loving. > >These are some of your words, Dale: "Passive-aggressive", "biased", "not >honest", "false religion", "passive-aggressive tyrrany trick", "Baha'i >religion desecrates Jesus Christ ", etc. > >Every one of your postings has rejected what Baha'is offered to you. You >have responded to our answers to you by called into question our honesty, >integrity and motives. We say that we love Christ, and you say we desecrate >Him. > >Baha'u'llah wrote: "The religion of God is for love and unity; make it not >the cause of enmity or dissension." > >"I bear witness, O my God, that Thou hast created me to know Thee and to >worship Thee. I testify, at this moment, to my powerlessness, and to Thy >Might, to my poverty, and to Thy Wealth. There is none other God but Thee, >the Help in Peril, the Self-Subsisting." > >That Dale, is the essence of the Faith of God. Baha'u'llah commands His >followers to say it daily. > >Robert A. Little > >Robert A. Little >Dale Grider wrote in message <355424AC.6835@bellsouth.net>... >>Robert says, >>"Roger Reini has been patient, loving and gentle, has shown grace and >>courtesy week after week." >> >>I don't see that as characterizing Roger's tone at all Robert. But then, >>I expect you are a bit biased. At any rate, your comment itself is >>somewhat passive aggressive, assuming as it does that I haven't been as >>"loving and gentle" as Roger. The fruit is in the truth. The fruit is >>not is false religion. Now if we cannot discuss issues without this ad >>hominum kind of accusation being made, I think the fruit being displayed >>is not honest. Let's have honest fruit that faces and discusses issues >>and leaves off with the passive aggressive tyranny trick. I continue to >>discover that Baha'i religion desecrates Jesus Christ. I am willing to >>discuss the issues but, just like you, I can only believe from the >>viewpoint of where I am. You and Roger have faith that what you promote >>is truth. So do I. We both feel it will stand the test of "independent >>investigation". So let's get on with the investigation and leave off >>with the "your not being nice enough" ad hominums. I wish to discuss >>issues that you believe I am wrong over no more or less than I believe >>you are. I have certainly shouldered my share of Baha'i hostility. I can >>take it. It's worth conducting the investigation and hashing out issues >>that are important. You need to be big enough to do the same. >>Dale > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:58 AM Subject: fw Re: Saludos a los Bahais desde España Vafa Abbasi wrote in message <01bd7b77$4b6b74a0$abc37ac3@servidor>... >Yo tambien soy bahai, estoy en España. > >Saludos a todos los Bahais del mundo > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 8:59 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Satan fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm YU ZIR wrote in message <6j2u46$38h$1@newsd-162.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... When Jesus spoke to Peter, saying "Get thee behind me Satan," Darricke has interpreted this to mean that Jesus was referring to some part of Peter's spiritual psyche (so to speak). From this single passage (and that dubious interpretation) one cannot legitimately extrapolate the Biblical teaching on Satan to support the Baha'i view. For starters, try reading the Book of Job, especially the first few chapters. This is no small point. Any Christian or Jew who is being approached by a Baha'i (with the view being to persuade him that the Baha'i faith is revealed by God) should rely on what the Bible actually says. It says that Satan exists. The Baha'is say he does not.. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 10, 1998 9:00 AM Subject: fw Re: Baha'i Writings which praise and glorify Jesus fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Roger Reini wrote in message <3555fe0c.87850406@news.newsguy.com>... >In light of recent discussion here on a.r.b., I have posted these >excerpts from the Baha'i Writings which praise and glorify Christ. >-------------------- > >Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the >whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, >however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its >evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now >manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have >uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the >arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by >the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening >power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent >Spirit. > We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor >of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered >from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the >unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty >God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner >sanctified. > Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between >man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself >to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered >in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness >that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, >every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it >is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face >beaming with light, hath turned towards Him. >(Baha'u'llah: Gleanings, pages 85-86) > >The traces of the Spirit of Jesus Christ, the influence of His Divine >Teaching, is present with us today, and is everlasting. >(`Abdu'l-Baha: Paris Talks*, page 91) > >As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any >hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally >acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are >fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is >fully recognized, that the reality of the mystery of the Immaculacy of >the Virgin Mary is confessed, and the primacy of Peter, the Prince of >the Apostles, is upheld and defended. The Founder of the Christian >Faith is designated by Baha'u'llah as the "Spirit of God," is >proclaimed as the One Who "appeared out of the breath of the Holy >Ghost," and is even extolled as the "Essence of the Spirit." >(Shoghi Effendi: The Promised Day is Come, page 109) > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:13 AM To: Jeffrey A. Goldberg Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Thanks. The Writings are full of such passages. Why they should be so despised by many Bahais is beyond me.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Goldberg To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, May 10, 1998 5:18 PM Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> I've created a new web site devoted to the Bahai Faith, >> especially the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >> freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also >> includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet >> polls for talk.religion.bahai. >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > Dear Mr. Glaysher > >I like your web site. It is refreshing to see quotes that talk about liberty >instead of censorship. > >-- > >Jeffrey A. Goldberg > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:26 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale&Jesus Resurrection#1 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <3555C96F.2358@bellsouth.net>... >Perhaps the best thing to do then Roger, would be to take issue with one >another when and if we feel that we are not being treated respectfully. >Third parties would probably better only comment on "tone" if someone is >addressing them specifically.My feeling that your tone hadn't been as >benevolent as Robert suggested stemmed from my view that you have >snipped things I have said out of context to put words in my mouth.This. >I think though, has come across in my responses to those instances. > At any rate, I feel that the issues are of too much importance than to >spend too much time with personal emotional accusations. I'm going to >try to ignore any more and just stick to the issues. I promise to try >not to be rude about it, but, in the sitaution we find ourselves in, >with deeply held beliefs being confronted, some will no doubt still find >it irresistable to get on that band wagon. > >Let's just discuss the issues. > >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:27 AM To: Dale Grider Subject: fw Re: John&Dale's ongoing discussion fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <3555C9F1.57A8@bellsouth.net>... >To John Noland and the Newsgroup > > I don't want to give the impression that I have ignored the first part >of John's second recent response. But I wanted to focus first on his >comments about Moses, the presumably "sinless" manifestation. This is a >very important issue because it involves exegesis on its most >fundamental level. I will respond to the first part of his letter after >this subject of Moses and "sinless" manifestations is considered. > John and I have politely (mostly) accused one another of poor exegesis >on a number of occasions. I, for one, have made some mistakes such as >assuming metaphorical usage when a simile was being used (in Hebrews), >and stating that Abdul Baha "conveniently" forgot to mention that Adam >had NEITHER a Father OR a mother, when in fact he specifically mentioned >the consideration. These mistakes however, are not errors in >interpretation that alter the basic meaning intended in the original >text. In spite of those errors, my point that there lie inherent >inevitable implications in what was said was still valid. This is very >different than a blatant corruption of the basic meaning of the text >itself which attributes a meaning that the original writer could not >have intended. In our immediate case this involves forcing the text to >allow Moses to be sinless, when it cannot be legitimately taken that way >according to the Scriptural evidence. With Moses, and even more so with >Adam, the concept of a host of "sinless" manifestations is revealed as >false religion. This is a case of blatant and fundamentally abusive >exegesis that attempts to force the text of Scripture to fit non >biblical ideas that have been brought to the text and can be >definitively shown not to represent the writer's intention. And it is >important to note that the following presentation represents >AUTHORITATIVE Baha'i teaching, not just John Noland's opinion. I have >often been falsely accused of developing an irrelevant apologetic case >because it has been based upon internet discussion with non >manifestations whose beliefs are not authoritative. This has always >seemed like a shallow dodge since, as we will see in the case of John, >his perspective is specifically an attempt to represent official Baha'i >belief, supported by specific passages from authoritative Baha'i >leaders. We will discover that John's outlook is the same as, and >derives from, that of Abdul Baha. Thus, the following comparative >analysis is very relevant, not only to my differences with John, but >with the established official Baha'i theological outlook. > > >Quoting John at length he says, > >"Was Moses a sinner? I don't think so. Even when we look upon the fact >that Moses killed a man, Moses only broke the law of the Pharoah, and >not the Law of God. It's obvious that God found Moses to have acted >properly. You state that you believe Moses to be a sinner based on the >following passages: > >"There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be >gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor >and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith >with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah >Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness >among the Israelites." > >"But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not trust in me >enough to honor me as holy in the sight of the Israelites, you will not >bring this community into the land I give them." > >You interpret these passages to mean that at the waters of Meribah, >Moses trespassed against God by not sanctifying God among the children >of Israel and, consequently, was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. >But in Some Answered Questions Abdu'l Baha explains that God is here >addressing Moses not as an individual but in His capacity of >representative of His people. Though outwarldy directed at Moses, the >rebuke is really intended for the children of Israel. (SAQ 167)" > >Let's quote that passage so that we are certain that what John is >explaining here, is, in fact, accurately representing Baha'i exegesis of >the texts in question. > >Pg 167 > EXPLANATION OF THE REBUKES ADDRESSED BY GOD TO THE PROPHETS > > Question.--In the Holy Books there are some addresses of reproach >and rebuke directed to the Prophets. Who is addressed, and for whom is >the rebuke? > Answer.--All the divine discourses containing reproof, though >apparently addressed to the Prophets, in reality are directed to the >people, through a wisdom which is absolute mercy, in order that the >people may not be discouraged and disheartened. They, therefore, >appear to be addressed to the Prophets; but though outwardly for the >Prophets, they are in truth for the people and not for the Prophets. > >... in Numbers, chapter 20, verse 23: "And the Lord spake unto Moses >and Aaron in mount Hor, by the coast of the land of Edom, saying, Aaron >shall be gathered unto his people: for he shall not enter into the land >which I have given unto the children of Israel, because ye rebelled >against My word at the water of Meribah"; and in verse 13: "This is >the water of Meribah; because the children of Israel strove with the >Lord, and >He was sanctified in them." > Observe: the people of Israel rebelled, but apparently the >reproach was for Moses and Aaron. As it is said in the Book of >Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 26: "But the Lord was wroth with Me for >your sakes, and would not hear Me: and the Lord said unto Me, Let it >suffice Thee; speak no more unto Me of this matter." > Now this discourse and reproach really refer to the children of >Israel, ... This address and reproach appeared to be for Moses and >Aaron, but in reality they were for the people of Israel. " > > John very accurately represents the official Baha'i exegesis and >interpretation of the specific texts under consideration. > > > >John quotes Exodus, > >"So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel...."(Ex. 17:6-7) > > >Then John comments, > > "Here Moses is completely obedient; it is the people who rebel by >quarrelling and testing God. The incident is repeated at Kadesh, where >Moses is commanded to 'Take the rod...and speak ye unto the rock before >their eyes; and it shall give forth his water...And Moses took the rod >before the Lord, as he commanded him.' Denouncing the Israelites as 'ye >rebels', Moses 'lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock >twice, and water came out abundantly...' (Num 20:8-11). Some people >suggest that Moses transgressed when He 'smote' the rock instead of >speaking to it. However, the fact that Moses, wielding the rod 'as [God] >commanded him', actually obtained water, suggests that God intended for >Moses to 'speak' to the rock through the rod by striking it. " > > Here we find the point at which John (and Abdul Baha), must >presumptuously read meaning into and contrary to the plain meaning >given to justify Baha'i presuppositions (That is, "The Baha'i >manifestations are all "sinless souls"). The idea of "speaking" by >"striking" is, to say the least, stretching the integrity of honest >exegesis of the plain meaning of the text beyond the limit of >accetability in and of itself. Although John accurately observes that >the incident from Exodus has Moses obedient. He then fudges the text >terribly when a similar but seperate and later incident occurs in >Numbers where Moses definitively DOES NOT obey God. Moses, who "on >account of the people" is greatly TEMPTED by them, then greatly sins of >his own accord. He specifically and personally (and evidently in great >anger) speaks rudely to the people in a way that did not honor God >before them and struck the rock God specifically told him to "speak" to. >Moses rebelled against God's direct command and will. > Do I read ANYTHING into the text that Scripture does not definitvely >support? No. For at Psalm 106:32 we see that the psalmist tells us that, >"By the waters of Meribah they angered the LORD, and trouble came to >Moses because of them; for they rebelled against the Spirit of God, ><<>>. The only sense that the >people could be seen as "causing" Moses to come into trouble (John >emphasizes <> in the text of Deuteronomy) was in that >they most certainly were the source of his temptation. It is absolutely >against the text, as seen from a fuller biblical context, to say that he >was punished in some substitutionary sense for sins he himself had not >committed. Such exegesis and interpretation is awful and impossible. >But I recognize that Scripturally this is a desperate situation for >Baha'i theology which must try to rationalize away the scriptural >intention. To speak "rashly" in the position Moses was in, and in >regards to the command of God before the people, is SIN John, personal >sin. Moses' sin. Such a specific passage reflecting upon the incident as >Pslam 106 reinforces the plain and obvious meaning of the text in >Numbers and Deuteronomy and completely breaks the already unreasonably >strained Baha'i substitutionary interpretation. > >Thus, John's closing fury is turned back upon himself. He storms, > > >"If God Himself says that Moses was completely faithful to Him, how on >earth can you, Dale Grider, call Moses a sinner?" > > >God Himself tells Moses that he will not see the holy land because HE >HIMSELF (and Aaron) "broke faith" before the people. Psalm 106 begs John >to reconsider just who "daringly" perverts the plain and literal meaning >intended by God's Word over the issue? > > But we are not left with only these passages with which to cross >reference the validity of John's strained rationale for deflecting >personal responsibility from Moses for sin. At Exodus 4:14 we find that, >"Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses" . Compare this to Jesus. >Did the Lord's anger ever "burn" "against" Jesus? According to Jesus' >own Words we find that this Scriptural indication proves that Moses >could not have been sinless and a "perfect" reflection of God as Baha'i >theology would have him. We always find that Jesus and the Father are in >PERFECT agreement. Jesus, recall, was confronted by the Pharisees who >saked where He got the power to perfom His miracles and whether or not >it might have been from Satan. He replied that a house divided against >itself cannot stand. How can we then see Moses in the same station as >Jesus if Scripture says that the Lord's anger burned against him? A >perfect reflection is not what we find here. Perfect agreement is >broken. We do indeed see a qualitative difference. But it is one that >stands personally between Moses and Jesus in Station. Not <Jesus>>, as against other prophets. Moses was not in perfect agreement >with the Father as Jesus is. Moses was a sinful human who God's anger >burned against at times. Holy among men, as was John the Baptist, yet >in his sinful mortality as compared to the perfectly righteous standard >of God, Moses too was "less than the least in the Kingdom", without the >true substitutionary death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. > > Yet I wish to take this line of thought further. Let’s look at the >reality of some of the Baha’i manifestations to see if they were >sinless. Dr. Francis Beckwith in chapter three of his book Baha’i, A >Christian response to Baha'i religion observes; > “Abdul -Baha writes another invalid criterion of the manifestations: >‘For these holy souls are pure from every sin, and sanctified from >faults.’ > > ...Adam, Moses, Noah, Confucius, and Muhammad have all failed to live >up to this standard. According to the first three chapters of Genesis, >Adam committed a sinful act. He disobeyed the specific command of God >not to eat from the tree of knowledge. His disobedience, and that of his >mate, caused both to be banished from the Garden of Eden. > > ...It is said of Muhammad in the Qur’an (48:1-2): ‘Lo! We have given >thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory. That Allah may forgive thee of thy >sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His >favor unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path.’ > In order to escape the fact that some of the manifestations were >sinners, ‘Abdul-Baha’ has said; > ‘How often the prophets of God and his universal Manifestations in >their prayers confess their sins and faults! This is only to teach other >men, to encourage and incite them to humility and weakness, and induce >them to confess their sins and faults.’ > Since none of the texts that have been presented support ‘Abdul-Baha’s >interpretation, there is no reason to suppose his interpretation >correct. ‘Abdul- Baha’s hermeneutic (rule of interpretation) has nothing >to do with the evidence within a given text, but is an unjustified >presupposition. In order to be fair to any world religious leader, one >should accept what the leader says at face value, instead of twisting it >in order to fit a predetermined belief. In other words, if the leader >says, ‘I am a sinner’, or, ‘I have failed God’, this must be accepted. >It should not be distorted in order to fit a particular prejudice of the >reader (such in the case of ‘Abdul- Baha’ – ‘the manifestations never >sin.’)” > > In addition to Dr. Beckwith’s observations regarding a hermeneutic that >does not respect the text, another important point bears mentioning here >in terms of this often cited quality of the manifestations sinlessness. >Even if ‘Abdul-Baha’ were correct in that the manifestations only "seem" >to be sinners because they deceive us, that dishonesty in and of itself >would be a genuine sin! The ends do not justify the means and God has >specifically told us, “Thou shalt not lie.” > > As Scripture definitively portrays Moses as a sinner, how much more so >it does with respect to Adam. Again, Bahai doctrine says Adam was a >"sinless" manifestation. Again, in order to do so, it has to try to >build a case for Adam as a "substitutionary" bearer for others sins. >Again, it is definitively against the Scriptural text, in ANY valid >scholarly interpretation that respects the text. > > Baha'i doctrine says that Adam was a representative for the sins of the >people. One reading the Bible must immediately wonder, “what people?” >For the story of Adam is one of beginnings. We could get into areas of >such divergence in this area that it might be better not to try to >develop arguments to prove how much and what kind of symbolic license >would be proper here. One point to keep in mind however is that even if >you see the story of Adam as symbolic, it would still have to be >Scripturally seen to symbolize both mankind's earliest beginnings, and >mankind’s sinful fall from God’s grace. Not his sinless intercession on >behalf of others sins, but his need because of responsibility for his >own sin, for that intercession from outside himself. > In Genesis 3:2 we see that Eve knew what God allowed and did not allow. >She had knowledge for which she was personally responsible. > “The woman said to the serpent, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the >garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is >in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will >die.'" > I Genesis 3 both she and Adam sin when they knowingly break God’s >command. > “When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and >pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took >some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, >and he ate it.” > At ch 3:11 we see that Adam was also responsible as God asks him, > “...Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" >The man (Adam) said, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some >fruit from the tree, and I ate it." ...Then the LORD God said to the >woman, "What is this you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent >deceived me, and I ate." ...To Adam He (God) said, "Because you listened >to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You >must not eat of it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through >painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.” > There is no hint of even a symbolic possibility that these passages >could indicate Adam as an intercessor for the sins of others. Once again >we are dealing with the Words of God himself who specifically reprimands >and punishes Adam (and Eve) for sin. Their own sin, specifically and >personally. > Hosea 6:7 tells us that, > “Like Adam, they (Israel) have broken the covenant-- they were >unfaithful to Me (God) there.” > Here again we see that Baha'i doctrine is wrong in interpreting Adam >as the sinless manifestation he is supposed to be. Adam himself is >specifically guilty of sin, symbolism notwithstanding. > There is more that can be shown through the Old Testament (as if any >more were needed), but it is also important to observe how New Testament >Scripture corroborates the sinfulness of Adam. 1Corinthians 15:22 tells >us that, “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” >Clearly we see by this bold comparison the exact opposite of the Baha’i >attempt to make Adam a sinless manifestation, or seeing him as even an >intercessor! For as in Christ is found the Salvation from the penalty of >sin (death), Adam represents that very sin in mankind needy of the >Salvation. To see Adam as a sinless manifestation is completely contrary >to any possible legitimate interpretation of Scripture. Worst of All, >Baha'i doctrine has taken the primary sinful dynamic representing the >need for Jesus' genuine intercessory sacrificial death and Resurrection, >and turned it into a like "messaih" type! He who brought the sin that >leaves us needy of Redemption is impossibly and blasphemousy turned into >a Savior from it! > >It is Baha'i doctrine John, caught in a need to eliminate Scripture that >won't abide its religious preconditions, that "dares" to reinvent God's >truths into man made religion that is set against it. > >In Jesus Christ, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:35 AM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:37 AM Subject: Re: Leaving the Faith >Dear Fred, >I'mre returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as I feel it is >comes off as being disrespectful to Bob and to our readers. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Bobcharnes wrote in message <"VHDezB.A.1TD.Z1yU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> But in the >> >meantime, many are hovering on the fringes of community life, wondering >> what to >> >do with their feelings and thoughts, after trying seemingly everything >> possible >> >to make people aware of certain difficult but important truths. >> >> The answer is clear: Keep them to yourselves! >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:35 AM Subject: SRB censored: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:37 AM Subject: Re: Leaving the Faith >Dear Fred, >I'mre returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as I feel it is >comes off as being disrespectful to Bob and to our readers. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Bobcharnes wrote in message <"VHDezB.A.1TD.Z1yU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> But in the >> >meantime, many are hovering on the fringes of community life, wondering >> what to >> >do with their feelings and thoughts, after trying seemingly everything >> possible >> >to make people aware of certain difficult but important truths. >> >> The answer is clear: Keep them to yourselves! >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:39 AM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored #2: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:47 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >Dear Fred, >This is nothing more than pure flame bait. Please leave the broad >generalizations and criticisms out, and stick with the charter. This >newsgroup is for the discussion of the Baha'i Faith and it's teachings in >a consultative and respectful manner, not a grievence forum. Provide some >real facts and back them up with the Writings. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> William Collins wrote in message <"ti6gJB.A.JhD.IVzU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> This is no less true >> >of those who find their meaning in endless criticism of Baha'i >> >institutions and of committed believers. >> >> The context within which you set any kind of criticism or opinion >> other than what you think justifiable and appropriate obscures >> the issues that cause the criticism in the first place. An approach >> employed by many Bahais.... >> >> And if those who hold to >> >extremes are committed to continuing in those >> >directions, the end results are retarded growth of the community, and/or >> >the withdrawal of individuals or application of >> >sanctions to them. >> >> >> As is your blaming the individuals or victims.... >> >> >It appears to me to be an unhealthy pattern in anyone's life to fix upon >> >discontent, and then to be consumed with communicating >> >that discontent to others - especially to those with whom one is willing >> >to be continually angry. >> >> Abdu'l-Baha himself said that angry can serve the good.... There >> is such a phrase in English, "righteous anger," for wrongs suffered >> unjustly, wrongs that those who care about the Bahai Teachings >> ought to want to see corrected if they have any sense of justice.... >> >> If the Baha'i community, its >> >institutions, and the believers are as hypocritical, fanatical, >> >ungenerous, misguided and critical as portrayed by many of those >> >who post here, then why waste the precious days of your short lives >> >mired in lashing out at the them? Why not find something >> >else more fulfilling? >> >> Again, the typical Bahai approach.... Drive out or banish anyone >> who doesn't conform or agree with prevailing opinion.... This >> opinion also fails to perceive that there is much of importance >> the Bahai Faith needs to learn from many of its critics or voices >> of conscience.... >> >> The only other alternative is to arise and model >> >for others the kind of Baha'i life you think Baha'is should >> >lead, rather than telling the Baha'is how bad they are. Being >> >constantly possessed of a critical spirit is self-destructive. >> >> The Voice in the Wilderness is usually the one humankind needs >> the most.... The Bahai Faith is no different.... >> >> > >> >In the cyberworld that has opened up the possibility for people to put >> >all of their immediate and unprocessed feelings up in >> >print, it might also prove useful for those who post in response to the >> >naysayers to ponder a few things. Does the person who >> >blames the Baha'i institutions, community and believers for various >> >failures actually want a dialogue, or simply a confirmation >> >that he's right? Perhaps the best response to the angry words and >> >criticism is no written response at all, but a continued >> >demonstration of wisdom, and a willingness to follow the lived example >> >of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who loved everyone but did not >> >legitimize everyone's actions and words. >> >> The answer of many Bahais: ostracism.... >> >> > >> >Since the founding of various internet discussion groups a few years >> >ago, I have observed them carefully, both in the Baha'i >> >context, and in the context of other religions and disciplines. Except >> >for very tightly controlled discussion groups (and >> >soc-religion.bahai is not so tightly controlled), >> >> In my opinion, it is tightly controlled. See my new web site, >> alt.religon.bahai, or bahai-faith@makelist.com for evidence and >> discussion to that effect.... >> >> there is always a >> >significant percentage of participants whose purpose is criticism, >> >argumentation, negation and the expression of discontent. >> >> I would have to say that among Bahais there are always individuals >> willing to justify the most shameful abuse of the Teachings and >> ethics as long as they think it willl further the growth of the Faith.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:39 AM Subject: SRB censored #2: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:47 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >Dear Fred, >This is nothing more than pure flame bait. Please leave the broad >generalizations and criticisms out, and stick with the charter. This >newsgroup is for the discussion of the Baha'i Faith and it's teachings in >a consultative and respectful manner, not a grievence forum. Provide some >real facts and back them up with the Writings. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> William Collins wrote in message <"ti6gJB.A.JhD.IVzU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> This is no less true >> >of those who find their meaning in endless criticism of Baha'i >> >institutions and of committed believers. >> >> The context within which you set any kind of criticism or opinion >> other than what you think justifiable and appropriate obscures >> the issues that cause the criticism in the first place. An approach >> employed by many Bahais.... >> >> And if those who hold to >> >extremes are committed to continuing in those >> >directions, the end results are retarded growth of the community, and/or >> >the withdrawal of individuals or application of >> >sanctions to them. >> >> >> As is your blaming the individuals or victims.... >> >> >It appears to me to be an unhealthy pattern in anyone's life to fix upon >> >discontent, and then to be consumed with communicating >> >that discontent to others - especially to those with whom one is willing >> >to be continually angry. >> >> Abdu'l-Baha himself said that angry can serve the good.... There >> is such a phrase in English, "righteous anger," for wrongs suffered >> unjustly, wrongs that those who care about the Bahai Teachings >> ought to want to see corrected if they have any sense of justice.... >> >> If the Baha'i community, its >> >institutions, and the believers are as hypocritical, fanatical, >> >ungenerous, misguided and critical as portrayed by many of those >> >who post here, then why waste the precious days of your short lives >> >mired in lashing out at the them? Why not find something >> >else more fulfilling? >> >> Again, the typical Bahai approach.... Drive out or banish anyone >> who doesn't conform or agree with prevailing opinion.... This >> opinion also fails to perceive that there is much of importance >> the Bahai Faith needs to learn from many of its critics or voices >> of conscience.... >> >> The only other alternative is to arise and model >> >for others the kind of Baha'i life you think Baha'is should >> >lead, rather than telling the Baha'is how bad they are. Being >> >constantly possessed of a critical spirit is self-destructive. >> >> The Voice in the Wilderness is usually the one humankind needs >> the most.... The Bahai Faith is no different.... >> >> > >> >In the cyberworld that has opened up the possibility for people to put >> >all of their immediate and unprocessed feelings up in >> >print, it might also prove useful for those who post in response to the >> >naysayers to ponder a few things. Does the person who >> >blames the Baha'i institutions, community and believers for various >> >failures actually want a dialogue, or simply a confirmation >> >that he's right? Perhaps the best response to the angry words and >> >criticism is no written response at all, but a continued >> >demonstration of wisdom, and a willingness to follow the lived example >> >of 'Abdu'l-Baha, who loved everyone but did not >> >legitimize everyone's actions and words. >> >> The answer of many Bahais: ostracism.... >> >> > >> >Since the founding of various internet discussion groups a few years >> >ago, I have observed them carefully, both in the Baha'i >> >context, and in the context of other religions and disciplines. Except >> >for very tightly controlled discussion groups (and >> >soc-religion.bahai is not so tightly controlled), >> >> In my opinion, it is tightly controlled. See my new web site, >> alt.religon.bahai, or bahai-faith@makelist.com for evidence and >> discussion to that effect.... >> >> there is always a >> >significant percentage of participants whose purpose is criticism, >> >argumentation, negation and the expression of discontent. >> >> I would have to say that among Bahais there are always individuals >> willing to justify the most shameful abuse of the Teachings and >> ethics as long as they think it willl further the growth of the Faith.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:41 AM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored #3: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >Dear Fred, >I'm returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai for once again >coming off as disrespectful. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"JSgW1D.A.3MD.kryU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> I wrote: >> >>The Bahai faith is a beautiful dream on paper.... >> > >> > >> >The Baha'i Faith isn't just "a beautiful dream", it is the Faith of God >> >renewed for this new Age. As such, its forward march is unstoppable. >> >> That's the claim or theory but I don't see it as a reality.... Bahais >> have done a very effective job of stopping its forward march.... >> >> >According to Shoghi Effendi, the only influence that its detractors can >> >have, ultimately, is a positive one -- that of purifying the Faith of >> >unwholesome elements and of kindling the fire of faith in the hearts of >> >its ardent supporters: >> >> >> This interpretation is part of the problem, i.e., anyone who says >> anything other than the most predictable and mundane must be >> a miscreant.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:41 AM Subject: SRB censored #3: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Teri Rhan To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb moderators Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >Dear Fred, >I'm returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai for once again >coming off as disrespectful. >Thanks >Teri Rhan >trhan@serv.net >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >> Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"JSgW1D.A.3MD.kryU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> I wrote: >> >>The Bahai faith is a beautiful dream on paper.... >> > >> > >> >The Baha'i Faith isn't just "a beautiful dream", it is the Faith of God >> >renewed for this new Age. As such, its forward march is unstoppable. >> >> That's the claim or theory but I don't see it as a reality.... Bahais >> have done a very effective job of stopping its forward march.... >> >> >According to Shoghi Effendi, the only influence that its detractors can >> >have, ultimately, is a positive one -- that of purifying the Faith of >> >unwholesome elements and of kindling the fire of faith in the hearts of >> >its ardent supporters: >> >> >> This interpretation is part of the problem, i.e., anyone who says >> anything other than the most predictable and mundane must be >> a miscreant.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 11, 1998 2:29 PM Subject: fw Re: Relying on the Writings Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Roger Reini wrote in message <355de127.207148589@news.newsguy.com>... >Some of the discussions that take place here, especially the ones that >get very intricate, with point after point after point in long >messages, can get tiring. And things can get confusing after a while, >as well. > >Whenever I find myself doubting, I turn to the writings of the Baha'i >Faith, especially those of the Central Figures. There is might and >majesty in the writings of Baha'u'llah and the Bab, which befits Their >station as Manifestations of God. And 'Abdu'l-Baha's authoritative >elucidations and explanations help me understand the teachings of >Baha'u'llah more easily. I can read the Books of prior dispensations >(i.e., the Torah, the Gospel, the Qur'an, etc.) and see how they prove >the unity of religion and the unity of God. > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 6:34 AM Subject: fw Re: John Noland's long letter 1 of 3 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35576BF8.51CB@bellsouth.net>... >To: "John Noland" > > >John continues to insist that, > "The difference in our views on this issue (of Jesus' station) are not >that far apart and the differences are subtle. You say that Jesus Christ >was "fully man". A statement I agree with one hundred percent. Jesus was >born, was subject to growth, experienced normal human conditions and >emotions." > > So far, John is correct in that we agree on some aspects of Jesus >being. But they are irrelevant in terms of whether the DIFFERENCES are >trivial or not. For, while John has asserted that Jesus only was a >"human soul" in terms of His own person, he also says that it was, >"...a soul, just like you and I, only unlike ours, his soul was perfect >and stainless." And so he asserts a belief antithetical with the >Scriptural concept that ALL mere mortals fall short of being "perfect >and stainless", "divinity" notwithstanding. Scripture portrays Jesus >ALONE amongst men as truly and utterly sinless, which, being a condition >only God has (pure and utterly perfect righteousness), reveals Him as >God incarnate. As an "eternal person" incarnate we see that this Jesus >is then the SINGULAR "manifestation", no, INCARNATION, of that person >amongst men and thus His return will likewise be of that same eternal, >single person. The differences and their implications are vast John. If, >as you formerly said, Jesus personal station were that of a "human >soul", then He could not possibly be considered sinless by Jesus' own >proclamation. For as Jesus Himself tells us in this regard, "Only God is >good." But, if He is who He says He is (can any of you accuse Me of >sin?), and who Scripture portrays Him as (creator of all that has been >created) and who Christians proclaim Him as(The Alpha and Omega, >Messiah, God the Son), then by virtue of His own personally utter >sinlessness He Himself is no MERE man, but God incarnate. John not only >presents a major departure from Scriptural Christian belief, he even >proposes a Scriptural contradiction in terms specifically pointed out by >Jesus Himself. For the Jesus John describes is a "sinless" ("good") >human soul! > >John continues, > "You also say that He was "fully God". Again, a statement I agree >with. The Baha'i view says that Jesus reflected all of the attributes >and perfections of God through His perfect and stainless soul, so He >could legitimately claim to be God." > Now John, you and I know very well that what I mean by saying that >Jesus was "fully God" and what you mean by it are LIGHT YEARS APART. >Surely you are smart enough to realize that like terminology is only as >similar as the meaning that is poured into it in mutual agreement. You >do NOT mean to agree that Jesus' person was that of God the Son at all. >And the differences with which you define His having been "fully God" as >only meaning a reflection of some other person is not a subtle >difference with Christian belief at all. > > Then you list some vast differences we have and never tell me how they >fit into your argument that they aren't very different? You say, > > "You believe that the one Godhead is made up of three distinct >personalities, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. You >believe that Jesus was God the Son incarnate." > >Sounds like you understand the nature of our vast differences pretty >well? > >You say, > "I know there are places that show Jesus to be equal with God, but >these instances speak to our relationship with Christ and with God, not >with Christ's relationship to the Father." > >The first part of your statement is true and the second half (that >attempts to rationalize it away from what you already concede is being >said) seems to make no rational sense to me. How would indications of >Jesus' absolute deity have anything to do with "our" relationship with >God instead of His own with the Father, which is what would specifically >define, "...places that show Jesus to be equal with God"? There is >certainly no question as to whether WE are God? It sounds like you just >can't accept the first part of your statement? > > > You tell me, >"To my knowledge, nowhere do the Gospels say, Jesus said this or that >speaking as a man and in other places said He spoke as God. You >personally make this determination, not Scripture." > > But I disagree and I do so on the basis of common sense. If Jesus says >that He only says what the Father tells Him to, reason points out to us >that He was Human. This you accept. But if Jesus is portrayed as >uncreated in "person", the specific and personal creative agent of "all >that was created", one who gives eternal life "to whom H e is pleased to >give it" and forgives men their sins, then we see the aspect of Jesus >Station, just as clear as a bell in Scripture, .... that you refuse to >believe of Him. The Words themselves make the determination John, not I. >You seem able to accept half of them, the half that doesn't interfere >with Baha'i presuppositions. The other VITAL reality of the Scriptural >Jesus you reject due to your bias. As you yourself agree, BOTH aspects >are there to be seen in the text of Scripture. You accept the humanity >of Jesus, and rationalize away the deity of Him though it is equally >represented and you even concede its very existence! "...I know there >are places that show Jesus to be equal with God..." > > >John says, > >"I believe God is infinite. I believe God is an omnipotent, omniscient, >all-powerful, all-seeing, all-knowing spirit. I believe that He exists >outside of time and space as we know it and that he can't be found to >reside in any given "place". > > On the contrary, He is found to reside in every given place. He is the >potter, not the clay. Your lack of understanding does not limit Him in >His ability to do what you cannot fathom. > >You say, > >"I believe that a God that could fully incarnate Himself would no longer >be God. " > > And I believe that a God who "couldn't", wouldn't be omnipotent, and >thus far more certainly wouldn't be God. For your God is no longer "ALL >POWERFUL" John. > >You say, > >"You (Dale) believe that God is made up of three distinct personalities. >... that "all of God's fullness" was contained within Jesus of Nazareth. >Excuse me if I say I'm baffled by this. Does this mean that one hundred >percent of God's infinite essence was contained within Jesus of >Nazareth? Or just the God the Son part?" > >100% in unity of being. ("The Father and I are One") > > >John asks, > >"What percentage of the Godhead does God the Son comprise?" > >1/3 persons, 100% being. > >John Asks, > >"What is one hundred percent of infinity?" > > In terms of the omnipotence of God's ability it is that He can do what >would seem impossible beyond our understanding. Thus, when you tell me >that God can "in no wise incarnate Himself" you quite specifically are, >"placing limits on God". You should consider the answer to your own >question. For it is only you who presumes to make finite ("100%"), the >"infinity" that characterizes God's utter omnipotence when you (and >Abdul Baha) tell me what God "in no wise" can do. > >But you say, > > "God may very well be able to incarnate Himself, but He would no longer >be infinite or "both everywhere and nowhere" if He did. And thus He >would no longer be God.", > >And so again John, you make the Potter to be like the clay. > >You say, > >"Can the Baha'i belief that Jesus reflected the attributes and >perfections of God be found explicitly stated in the Bible? Yes." > > I respond, of course He did. In a veil of human flesh was reflected the >Glory of the One and Only, God the Son, the singular person of the >eternal Christ, whom we came to know as Jesus of Nazareth. And this same >Jesus will return as He departed, in person. The incarnate Word, The >Messiah, our very God. A singular, eternal, person, Jesus Christ of >Nazareth. > >John says, > >"Can the Baha'i belief that Jesus and the Christ Spirit (or the Word) >are separate entities be found explicitly stated in the Bible? Again, >Yes." > > No John. And by the very verse from Hebrews that you yourself cited, >The Christ, and Jesus Christ are one and the same person. Jesus is >eternal and unchanging, not some separate "Christ". Jesus <<>> the >Christ. They are One and the Same, in person. > You share with me the very Scriptures that reveal that you yourself >must know the truth somewhere within. Yet you struggle to make >contradictory and man made religion fit with impossibly forced abuse of >Scripture that makes sinners into Messiahs and Christ into a "human >soul". > > >In prayer before a jealous God who will have no others before Him, >Dale. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 6:37 AM Subject: fw Re: love Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm Robert A. Little wrote in message <6j8ms3$1nr$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... Dear Friends: I believe that 'Abdu'l-Baha' would be deeply troubled by the tone and content of some of the postings that have appeared here of late. He, and His eldest grandson, Shoghi Effendi suffered greatly due to flagrant violations of the twin laws of love and unity. 'Abdu'l-Baha', when He came to America, would ask those who came to hear Him speak, "Are you happy? Are you really happy? If you are not happy in this Day, for what day are you waiting?" The world has awaited this time, this very time, for countless ages. Each one of us has in his/her hands our own destiny, our future - to make glorious, or to destroy. We must use what moments we are given here to further the cause of Unity and of Justice, and we must remember the incredible bounty we have been given, for living now. In the future, there will be nothing to build, no sacrifice to make, the world will be a paradise on earth. But those people, in that distant day, would give everything to live today, now, for but a moment. We who are alive now, have been given what no previous people have been given, the opportunity to raise up a new race of humanity which will be a spiritual race, a God-loving and God-fearing race. Seize the Day! The following is quoted in its entirety from Lights of Guidance, #618 ". . . It is a pity that some of the Western friends, with remarkable naivete', do not grasp the fact that there is absolutely nothing keeping those who have broken the Covenant, whether Baha'u'llah's or the Master's, out of the Cause of God except their own inner spiritually sick condition. If they were sound, instead of diseased, and wanted to enter the service of our Faith, they would apply direct to the Guardian, and he would be able to adjudge of their sincerity and, if sincere, would welcome them into the ranks of the faithful as he did with Sydney Sprague. Unfortunately a man who is ill is not made well just by asserting there is nothing wrong with him! Facts, actual states, are what count. Probably no group of people in the world have softer tongues, or proclaim more loudly their innocence, then those who in their heart of hearts, and by their every act, are enemies of the Center of the Covenant. The Master well knew this, and that is why He said we must shun their company, but pray for them. If you put a leper in a room with healty people, he cannot catch their health; on the contrary they are very likely to catch his horrible ailment." (April 11, 1949) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am forwarding an account of the International Convention recently held over the period of Ridvan (April 21 - May 2), in the Holy Land. -----Original Message----- From: Livesay [mailto:livesay@dallas.net] Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 6:12 PM To: Recipient list suppressed Subject: international convention Dear Friends, Here is another very moving account of the International Convention from one of the youth serving there. He has given permission to copy this. *************************************************************************** 12 Days of Ridvan (Paradise) - part one Memories, emotions, glimpses of a new Order. I wanted to share a few of my own experiences during these 12 days of the "Most Great Festival". ----------------------------------------------------------------------- AN AUSPICIOUS BEGINNING This Festival began with well over 100 youth gathered at the Shrine of the Bab on the evening of the Holy Day. The House of Justice had given us special permission to gather outside these Sacred Precincts to pray for the upcoming International Convention. Each youth, in his/her own language, recited the "Remover of Difficulties" prayer of the Bab, while encircling His sepulcher and His precious dust. French, Swahili, Japanese, Portuguese, Arabic, English, Tongan, Spanish, Slovak, Dutch, Hindi, Burmese, Italian, ... chanted, sung, shouted, and whispered, each in its turn lingered in the night air. On the second day of Ridvan, in the excitement of setting up for Convention, I dropped a large panel on my finger. It hurt. Ah, but to be able to shed a drop of blood in His path, to sacrifice for His Convention. Baha'u'llah sacrificed His health, His freedom, even His son, that the people of the world might unite - the first glimmerings of this unity I was soon to see first hand. It was nice to be able to suffer on the eve of and in preparation for this majestic event. ARMEN & ALLAH'U'ABHA The evening of the delegates arrival (the 3rd Day of Ridvan), we could not contain our excitement. "There here!" "Let's go to the Convention Center!" "I have to see them!" And away we went. It felt like Christmas>Eve. As we entered the cacophony of registration, with weary yet exuberant travellers from every corner of the globe, I heard to my left, "I need a volunteer." This was my chance. I was asked to escort Armen, the first and lone Armenian delegate to ever attend an international convention, to his lodgings several blocks from the Convention Center. We politely fought over who would carry his bag, and finally compromised, carrying it together. "I'm here" he kept repeating. Chills flowed over my body as he told me his story. He had left Armenia on April 10 (it was now the evening of the 23), gone to Georgia, then to Cyprus. Because he had gone to the Turkish part of Cyprus, he could not enter the Greek part, and had to go back to Turkey, then fly from Istanbul to Haifa, arriving only a few hours before our meeting. At each stage he had encountered difficulties, the details of which I could not fully discern because of the language barriers. "I have a picture of the Shrine of the Bab in my room... Every night I look at it... Now I'm here." As we arrived, the greeting "Alla-u-Abha" from the Mongolian, Uzbeki, and other members of National Spiritual Assemblies welcomed us. Allah-u-Abha, Allah-u-Abha, everywhere Allah-u-Abha. We heard these sweet words in every corner of Haifa, from men and women of every color and nationality one could imagine (and many one never knew existed) . For many, it was the only word we could communicate to each other. Somehow, it was enough. By the last day, the Israeli security guard was greeting everyone with Allah-u-Abha (and as we left saying "Khoda'fiz" [good-bye in Persian])! 2 Days of Ridvan (Paradise) - part two THE FLOWERS OF ONE GARDEN & DEMOCRACY On the fourth day of Ridvan, I woke up excited. Even though I wasn't scheduled today to volunteer, I went to the Shrine of the Bab, hoping I could help. I stayed for four hours, guiding at the Shrine, assisting in the Pilgrim House, and observing. The terraces - normally closed - were open for the Delegates. The most beautiful gardens in the world never looked more beautiful - dotted not only with a stunning variety of colorful flowers and vegetation, this "Pathway of the Kings" was now adorned with an even more stunning variety of peoples, races, languages, and cultures. I went into the Shrine of the Bab at one point to pray, and I simply could not concentrate. There was a power surging in the Shrine. I wanted to scream with excitement! Luckily I restrained myself. Here were all the National Assembly members of the world, praying fervently for their home communities, for their loved ones, and for guidance in discharging their spiritual duty - the election of the Universal House of Justice. Luckily, I restrained myself. As I guided (basically a guide just ensures that people remove their shoes, remain quiet, etc.), I was especially moved watching people leave the Shrine. An African woman, in her colorful flowing robe, a Persian pioneer from South America, a Baha'i from the Pacific Islands, clad in a tropical flowered shirt, a youth not a day older than myself from the Former Soviet Union, each leaving this Holy Spot with eyes full of tears, each moved, inspired, and humbled by the dust of the Martyr-Prophet of Shiraz, each beseeching His guidance as they prepared to cast their ballot for the Institution promised His and Baha'u'llah's "unerring guidance". How different from the democracy in which I was reared! Where is the mudslinging, the empty promises, the fanfare, the electioneering (indeed the members of the House of Justice were not seen at all before the election), the egotism, the confetti? "Don't blame me, I voted for Bush!" Here, only prayer, humility, reverence. The leaders of the Baha'i world, each in her/his turn, placing their foreheads to the threshold of the Holiest spot on the planet, praying, meditating, weeping, asking God for assistance. Winston Churchill once said that democracy was the worst form of government, except for all the other forms of government. Churchill never watched Mr. Olinga from Uganda, nearly blind, lost in his devotions, circumambulating the resting place of his Lord. UNITY IN DIVERSITY & THE DAWN-BREAKERS That evening, I returned to the pilgrim house. I was struck by two things. First, the diversity of these National Spiritual Assembly members. Literally all the peoples of the world were represented in this assemblage. I felt like the largest fly on the wall, joyfully observing this expression of unity in diversity. I was also uplifted by the youthful National Assembly members from the former Soviet Union and Eastern Block - I did not at all expect to meet these Dawn-Breakers. Many National Assemblies (Russia, Belarus, Poland, Check & Slovak Republics, etc.) had seven, eight, or nine members in their 20s! Seven, eight, or nine members with fire burning in their eyes, and the cry of "Ya Sahibuz Zaman!" in their hearts (even if they had never heard these words). "Quddus was 22 years old when he became a Bab'i" I kept telling them. I fell in love with these zealous youth. God willing, I plan to travel teach in the former Soviet Union when I leave the World Center. BAKHA'U'LLAH & THE IRON CURTAIN In this connection, I had the privilege one evening of attending a dinner with many of these young heroes. As the evening was winding down, only myself, the host, and 4 members of the National Assembly of Belarus remained (the oldest member was probably 26). One young man, Sergie - a month younger than myself (23) - played the guitar and sang. The "Queen of Carmel" and "Blessed is the Spot" in Russian were magical. He also played songs he and others had composed. The only words I understood were "Baha'i" and "Baha'u'llah" - actually BaKHa'i and BaKHa'u'llah, as there is no soft H in Russian. This word "Bakha'i", as I heard it spoken over and over with such love and reverence, became, for me, the sweetest word of the convention. As Sergie sang, I was wrapped up in their spirit like a blanket. I remember thinking to myself, "this must have been what the early Christians were like..." - nothing particularly impressive about the their youthful appearance, their modest clothes, their sometimes scraggly haircuts, but a spirit, a passion, a zeal, which to me seems the only window through which one can discern, however faintly, the fragrance of those Heroic Ages immediately following the advent of the Manifestations of God. These are the heroes of my generation. One other story: that evening, I was standing on terrace nine looking up at the Shrine of the Bab, and chatting with Mike, an American pioneer from South America. My friend Martina from Slovakia casually approached, told me to meet her when I was finished, and went off to speak with a National Assembly member from her country. After a pause, Mike said to me, "I was born in the Atomic Age - in 1946. It was unthinkable ..." He stopped. "To see all these Baha'is from former Communist countries ... it's ..." He began to weep. "... I'm sorry ... I just ..." Unable to regain his composure, he walked away. This man, one year older than my father, who had lived through the Cold War, and its Evil Empire, its McCarthyism, its Iron Curtain, its Vietnam, its looming threat of nuclear holocaust, its Kent State Massacre, and its SDI ... was now sobbing, his face in his hands, alone in the quiet shadows of the Bab's Shrine. I cried too. WHAT WILL BE DEMANDED OF ME? I concluded my journal that night with these words: "What feelings of joy and delight I experienced today, seeing the human family together!!! It *ruled*. What will be demanded of me now that I've seen this perfection?" ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:27 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored: 5-11-98 Blair Hedges wrote in message <35581A3B.4920C171@student.law.duke.eduNOSPAM>... > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >Dear Fred, >> >I'mre returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as I feel it is >> >comes off as being disrespectful to Bob and to our readers. >> >Thanks >> >Teri Rhan >> >trhan@serv.net >> >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >In regard to your 3 posts: "SRB censored" posted on Monday, 12 May 1998: > >I appreciate that you posted the entirety of the rejected material. >However, I do agree with the moderator of SRB. Your posts are >very little substance and a great deal of language which will only >provoke a substance-less argument. You express your arguments with >so much anger and so little substance that your points are lost. I beg your pardon. I do not believe my posts are of very little substance. Quite the reverse. I've just reread them and do not believe they are expressed with "so much anger." > >And note that my perspective is that of a seeker, not a Bahai. You seem to feel this gives you some special insight. I don't believe it does. You seem to me to deny the obvious.... That of the censorship that exists on soc.religion.bahai.... > >Blair Hedges Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored: 5-11-98 Blair Hedges wrote in message <35581A3B.4920C171@student.law.duke.eduNOSPAM>... > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> >Dear Fred, >> >I'mre returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as I feel it is >> >comes off as being disrespectful to Bob and to our readers. >> >Thanks >> >Teri Rhan >> >trhan@serv.net >> >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai > >In regard to your 3 posts: "SRB censored" posted on Monday, 12 May 1998: > >I appreciate that you posted the entirety of the rejected material. >However, I do agree with the moderator of SRB. Your posts are >very little substance and a great deal of language which will only >provoke a substance-less argument. You express your arguments with >so much anger and so little substance that your points are lost. I beg your pardon. I do not believe my posts are of very little substance. Quite the reverse. I've just reread them and do not believe they are expressed with "so much anger." > >And note that my perspective is that of a seeker, not a Bahai. You seem to feel this gives you some special insight. I don't believe it does. You seem to me to deny the obvious.... That of the censorship that exists on soc.religion.bahai.... > >Blair Hedges Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 7:31 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] SRB censored: 5-11-98 -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 8:10 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] SRB censored: 5-11-98 >Hi Fred >In this censored post you tell everyone on the fringe to be silent and in >the other two censored posts you say the opposite and encourage 'truth' >telling. Just thought I'd point out the contradiction. Star* Pardon me, but I don't believe I do either. Care to explain in detail how and why you think so? The contradiction to me is that I post obvious examples of censorship and you and other Bahais rush in to justify them.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >---------- >> From: FG >> To: SRB ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com > >> Subject: [bahai-faith] SRB censored: 5-11-98 >> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 6:35 PM >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Teri Rhan >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Cc: srb moderators >> Date: Monday, May 11, 1998 12:37 AM >> Subject: Re: Leaving the Faith >> >> >> >Dear Fred, >> >I'mre returning this to you unposted to soc.religion.bahai as I feel it >is >> >comes off as being disrespectful to Bob and to our readers. >> >Thanks >> >Teri Rhan >> >trhan@serv.net >> >Co-moderator, soc.religion.bahai >> > >> >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Bobcharnes wrote in message <"VHDezB.A.1TD.Z1yU1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >> >> But in the >> >> >meantime, many are hovering on the fringes of community life, >wondering >> >> what to >> >> >do with their feelings and thoughts, after trying seemingly >everything >> >> possible >> >> >to make people aware of certain difficult but important truths. >> >> >> >> The answer is clear: Keep them to yourselves! >> >> >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> List Archive & Subscription: >> https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] SRB censored: 5-11-98 ----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, May 12, 1998 8:26 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] SRB censored: 5-11-98 >Frederick - >You are mistaken here, I am not justifying censorship, only pointing out >what 'seems' to be a contradiction so that you can make your stand clear to >us readers on makelist. I am not against your expressing your feelings and >understandings - if you are agnry (and I'm not saying you are) there would >be a reason - whether real or imagined. Do not react to this negitively as >it is written with no animosity. Star* As I tried to imply, the contradiction, to my mind, is between the eloquent and pervasive articulation of respect for free speech and conscience in the Bahai Writings and the indisputable censorship and control of the minds and souls of others favored by many Bahais.... I'm not angry. Are you? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 7:04 AM To: davecrnll@aol.com; shinsato@inxight.com; gsemler@pdi-corp.com; tommycarter@usa.net; josh6396@aol.com; jwalker@ozdocs.net.au; whitbrandt@mailcity.com; artist@coinet.com; farmid@clinicomp.com; mbkafes@bestweb.net Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com Just a note to make sure all of you received notice of the migration from coollist.com to makelist.com. Makelist.com has many more useful features and works extremely well and reliably allowing people to subscribe through email as well as the web addresses below. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 7:04 AM To: davecrnll@aol.com; shinsato@inxight.com; gsemler@pdi-corp.com; tommycarter@usa.net; josh6396@aol.com; jwalker@ozdocs.net.au; whitbrandt@mailcity.com; artist@coinet.com; farmid@clinicomp.com; mbkafes@bestweb.net Subject: bahai-faith@makelist.com Just a note to make sure all of you received notice of the migration from coollist.com to makelist.com. Makelist.com has many more useful features and works extremely well and reliably allowing people to subscribe through email as well as the web addresses below. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 14, 1998 8:17 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: srb censored page updated on web site I've just finished constructing the soc.religion.bahai censored link on my web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience. Below is the page for those who might be interested: Soc.Religion.Bahai Censored Messages There are at least thirty to forty other messages posted to alt.religion.bahai, by people other than myself, stating that they believe they have been censored by srb, often with accompanying evidence. Since I've lost track of those messages among the massive 8,000+ postings, I'd appreciate it if people would forward me copies of them should anyone stumble upon them or have a copy. Re: Leaving the Faith 5/11/98 Re: Leaving Faith 5/11/98 Re: [bahai-faith] Leaving Faith (fwd) 5/8/98 [bahai-faith] Fw: Defrring to "cultural mores" (fwd) 5/7/98 [bahai faith] moderators vs censors 5/3/98 Re: 3rd RFD: talk.religion.bahai 1/9/98 Re: SRB censored: 11-21-97 11/25/97 SRB censored: 11-21-97 11/22/97 Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus 10/30/97 Re: Traffic on alt.religion.bahai versus 10/29/97 Re: MY ESPERANTO MASSAGES NEVER POSTED ? THIS IS CALLED 10/17/97 SRB Censored: 8-22-97 (Bern) 8/22/97 More Bahai censorship - moderators 8/20/97 SRB Censored: 8-14-97 8/14/97 SRB Censored: 8-13-97 8/13/97 Re censorship (from SRB) 8/12/97 Self-censorship: SRB 7-13-97 7/14/97 (A particularly blatant example of the way srb works.) SRB Censored: 6-12-97 6/12/97 SRB Censored: 5-22-97 5/23/97 Re: SRB Censored: 3-31-97 Open Letter to UHJ 4/4/97 SRB Censored: 4-23-97: Boatright 4/23/97 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:24 AM Subject: Re: Looking for articles on Bahai' You might look at my web site on the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience, which has some articles and many links to see if there's anything there of interest. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Shadow Dancer wrote in message <6jd5pk$i75@argentina.earthlink.net>... >Dear Friends, > >We are looking to add articles and information on the bahai' faith. This is >for inclusion in our Book of Light section of our website. > >Our site is non-profit and we are looking to provide a resource for people >looking for information on these topics and much more. > >If you have any appropriate material, including poetry or expressive work >please send it too! > >Please remember to include your any information your want to appear with >your article, such as email address, website URL, phone or mailing address. > >Thank you for your interest and support of the Grove of Light. > >In Light and Love, we are united, > >Shadow Dancer > >https://groveoflight.org/ >info@groveoflight.org > > >**************************************************** >"When any government, or any church for that matter, >undertakes to say to it's subjects, 'This you may >not read, this you must not see, this you are >forbidden to know,' the end result is tyranny and >oppression, no matter how holy the motives...no >amount of force can control a free man, a man >whose mind is free...you can't conquer a free man; >the most you can do is kill him." > --Robert Anson Heinlein >**************************************************** > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:37 AM To: Ron House; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: trouble reading my Bahai web site? I'd appreciate it if anyone else having trouble reading my web site let me know. I'm assuming the problem here is probably with Ron's system for some reason as no one else has mentioned anything like this while there have been 600+ hits in one week.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:08 PM Subject: Re: New site: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Hi Fred: The following is how my browser shows your site (an example - it is different each time). I have chopped it after the first few lines that look OK. -- Ron House house@usq.edu.au An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" ====================================================================== !bÊœIÓŠŠ ípÑéþ_ÆC°2n,²î§¾dFDZaA¢©Š"'0ë ԢՊѲjuÓ°¨Ñ¯É¼:ŒùµlÆ)<,|ESæZ#mãnxKD‰…xñ"k@äÕ¿ØÌ6\±! ‹#,Œ£4㯄•$¶@¹2âË,®`Ü©)Äúm#8 —º?îæM°ÖºUCÿÊš-K ‹ èÞ½{u= Computers (PC) Collectibles Cooking Education Fantasy Fashion & Style Freebies Games ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:58 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com; wahdat@hotmail.com Subject: Re your site (Bahai) A Bahai has commented on my web site below and on a few other things for which I believe I should offer clarifications.... ----Original Message----- From: Nima Hazini To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 11:11 PM Subject: your site >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > > Let me commend you on the formation of your new site on the >Baha'i faith and religious freedoms. Ditto! Ironically the value of >religious freedoms and conscience within the Bahai movement is something >that seems to be have been lost on Bahais of late (and especially among >the leadership), as we're both well aware. Indeed, the value of the Bahai Teachings on religious freedom and conscience do appear to be lost irreparably for many Bahais.... You assume I agree with you regarding it being lost "especially among the leadership." That there are individual Bahai "administrators" who are ignorant, benighted fanatics no experienced Bahai can doubt.... Alas, for human nature.... Overall, I do not agree with your sweeping indictment of the administrative order.... There are some intelligent people in control who know better, or so I hope, but are hemmed in and encircled by the literal-minded mob of the rank and file.... I noticed in your logs under >Juan Cole that there were two messages that mentioned my case. I'm not sure what you mean by "my case." I didn't follow the threads at the time though I vaguely remember your name and something about Australia.... As I was >not privy to the discussions (I unsubscribed from Talisman and Irfan >long ago), I was wondering if you have all the specific discussions >between Juan Cole and Susan Maneck (and anyone else) that discussed my >situation or where my name was mentioned, and, if possible, to forward >them to me, since other than the ones on your site I haven't seen any of >them. Perhaps someone else can help you.... > Also, it might be worth your while to contact Steven Scholl >(or Eric Pierce who has saved all the messages from the last 9 months of >Talisman I) and solicit him for his magesterial 5 part missive to the >universal house of justice entitled "Crisis of Faith." This is an >important document that would make a valuable contribution to your site. I appreciate the suggestions and would be happy to consider any other relevant material for inclusion on my web site. Does anyone have the addresses for these people? > Thank you. May this message find you well. > Best wishes, Nima Hazini > >It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon >by every eye, worshiped in every object of worship and pursued in the >seen and the unseen. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find >Him if they look within to their source, origin and primordial nature. > > Ibn `Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyyah Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 15, 1998 7:09 AM To: Steve Scholl Subject: "Crisis of Faith"? Dear Mr. Scholl: Someone has mentioned to me you have an essay that might be of interest to readers of my new web site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience. If you think it might be appropriate, I'd appreciate your forwarding a copy to me. You might glance at the site to help you decide. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > Also, it might be worth your while to contact Steven Scholl >(or Eric Pierce who has saved all the messages from the last 9 months of >Talisman I) and solicit him for his magesterial 5 part missive to the >universal house of justice entitled "Crisis of Faith." This is an >important document that would make a valuable contribution to your site. > Thank you. May this message find you well. > Best wishes, Nima Hazini ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:23 AM To: PierceED@csus.edu Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) Eric, If you would, let me know when or if you put them on a web site. I'd like to have a link to it from my new site The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: FG@hotmail.com ; wahdat@hotmail.com ; talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 6:41 PM Subject: Re your site (Bahai) Nima-jan, Right now all the talisman1 archives, and, except for the last 2-3 months, most of the talisman2 and irfan archives are in an off-line compressed format. I did get a new pentium Win95 machine at home recently, so I now have a large enough hard drive to begin decompressing them. As always, I hope to build a database of the archives, and maybe eventually make them available on a web site, public where the original poster can be contacted for permission, otherwise by password for original members of talisman1 community or whatever. BTW, I do have text extracts of selected talisman1 messages from Oct 1994 until May 1995 (when I joined). Sen sent them to me on floppies. Steve in New Zealand has lots of stuff too. Hope all is well with you! EP ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:33 AM To: Michael Buonsanto Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Michael Buonsanto wrote in message <"jEthn.A.FLD.zpnV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >Dear Friends, > >It might be a good idea to recall the spirit in which 'Abdu'l-Baha >has advised us to carry out our consultation: I don't see any place in your quotes justifying the suppression of others' opinion and views, as the srb moderators have done in this thread to me refusing to permit me to respond while giving you and others the freedom to state your orthodox views.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Michael Buonsanto wrote in message <"jEthn.A.FLD.zpnV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >Dear Friends, > >It might be a good idea to recall the spirit in which 'Abdu'l-Baha >has advised us to carry out our consultation: I don't see any place in your quotes justifying the suppression of others' opinion and views, as the srb moderators have done in this thread to me refusing to permit me to respond while giving you and others the freedom to state your orthodox views.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:39 AM To: RMckin6046@aol.com Subject: Re: Leaving Faith RMckin6046 wrote in message <"hn-WN.A.LXE.QphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... It's typical of the way the srb moderators run the newsgroup that they permit you and others to post such polemics while denying others the right of freedom of religious conscience and belief to state their own.... If anyone wishes to discuss honestly and candidly this subject, or any other for that matter, I suggest you'll have to do so on alt.religion.bahai, bahai-faith@makelist.com, and talk.religion.misc, all of which are unmoderated, i.e., uncensored.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith RMckin6046 wrote in message <"hn-WN.A.LXE.QphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... It's typical of the way the srb moderators run the newsgroup that they permit you and others to post such polemics while denying others the right of freedom of religious conscience and belief to state their own.... If anyone wishes to discuss honestly and candidly this subject, or any other for that matter, I suggest you'll have to do so on alt.religion.bahai, bahai-faith@makelist.com, and talk.religion.misc, all of which are unmoderated, i.e., uncensored.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:42 AM To: RMckin6046 Subject: Re: Leaving Faith RMckin6046 wrote in message <"71i_z.A.vXE.VphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >In Christopher Nason's original posting on this topic he decried the >"evangelicism" of the Baha'is... along with our hypocrisy and supremacist >attitudes. I believe he was criticizing the kind of thing so often found by Bahais and non-Bahais when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai: The confusion of teaching the Faith with distorting truth and freely held conscience or suppressing it, so often done by the "moderators," not to mention their hypocrisy, pretending they don't know what it is they're doing, etc.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith RMckin6046 wrote in message <"71i_z.A.vXE.VphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >In Christopher Nason's original posting on this topic he decried the >"evangelicism" of the Baha'is... along with our hypocrisy and supremacist >attitudes. I believe he was criticizing the kind of thing so often found by Bahais and non-Bahais when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai: The confusion of teaching the Faith with distorting truth and freely held conscience or suppressing it, so often done by the "moderators," not to mention their hypocrisy, pretending they don't know what it is they're doing, etc.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:44 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Leaving Faith At least sent to, if not posted on, soc.religion.bahai..... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Michael Buonsanto Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > >Michael Buonsanto wrote in message <"jEthn.A.FLD.zpnV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >>Dear Friends, >> >>It might be a good idea to recall the spirit in which 'Abdu'l-Baha >>has advised us to carry out our consultation: > > >I don't see any place in your quotes justifying the suppression of >others' opinion and views, as the srb moderators have done in >this thread to me refusing to permit me to respond while giving >you and others the freedom to state your orthodox views.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith At least sent to, if not posted on, soc.religion.bahai..... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: Michael Buonsanto Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:33 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > >Michael Buonsanto wrote in message <"jEthn.A.FLD.zpnV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >>Dear Friends, >> >>It might be a good idea to recall the spirit in which 'Abdu'l-Baha >>has advised us to carry out our consultation: > > >I don't see any place in your quotes justifying the suppression of >others' opinion and views, as the srb moderators have done in >this thread to me refusing to permit me to respond while giving >you and others the freedom to state your orthodox views.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith At least sent to, if not posted on, soc.religion.bahai.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: RMckin6046@aol.com Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >RMckin6046 wrote in message <"hn-WN.A.LXE.QphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >It's typical of the way the srb moderators run the newsgroup that >they permit you and others to post such polemics while denying >others the right of freedom of religious conscience and belief to >state their own.... > >If anyone wishes to discuss honestly and candidly this subject, >or any other for that matter, I suggest you'll have to do so on >alt.religion.bahai, bahai-faith@makelist.com, and talk.religion.misc, >all of which are unmoderated, i.e., uncensored.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith At least sent to, if not posted on, soc.religion.bahai.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >RMckin6046 wrote in message <"71i_z.A.vXE.VphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >>In Christopher Nason's original posting on this topic he decried the >>"evangelicism" of the Baha'is... along with our hypocrisy and supremacist >>attitudes. > > >I believe he was criticizing the kind of thing so often found by Bahais and >non-Bahais when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai: The confusion >of teaching the Faith with distorting truth and freely held conscience or >suppressing it, so often done by the "moderators," not to mention their >hypocrisy, pretending they don't know what it is they're doing, etc.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:56 AM To: Nima Hazini; bahai-faith @ makelist.com; talisman Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) Thank you for explaining the below to me. Do you have any documentary proof of your accusations? They are serious. For myself and for many Bahais and non-Bahais evidence would be necessary.... Steven Scholl has forwarded his "Crisis of Faith" to me and I shall shortly add it to my web site. Thanks for mentioning it to me. I don't have any old messages regarding you other than apparently the few that I saved for other reasons and which are on my web site.... Sorry. Perhaps someone else can help you out there.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Nima Hazini To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) >Dear Mr Glaysher: > A clarification to your reply: I am a non-Bahai. I formally >resigned from the Baha'i religion about a year-and-a-half ago since it >has become increasingly apparent to me that the values and techings of >the Baha'i Founders have been supplanted by a rigid, uncompromising >fundamentalism from the top. And, yes, while there are many individual >Baha'i administrators who are among individuals of high moral calibre, >rectitude and moderation, exemplifying the best of what their Founders >taught, their voices unfortunately have been drowned by those less so >who have strait-jacketed the Baha'i faith into what it was never >intended by its Founders. As such, I have chosen to follow a different >path and one which I feel accords more fully with the true spiritual >intent of the teachings and universalism of Baha'u'llah: i.e. Sufism. > My case, which is mentioned among the logs under Juan Cole, is the >following: last winter the American NSA sent a highly slanderous letter >to the Australian NSA the conclusion of which was to encourage Baha'is, >and especially the youth, in Australia to shun me because I had left the >Baha'i faith and "become a follower of Sufism." I had neither informed >the NSA of my current affiliation or that I was temporarily moving to >Australia - which raises the issue of spies and informants in the Baha'i >community. The letter is sent, btw, one full year after I had withdrawn >and had severed any formal contact with the Baha'i community and a few >weeks before I arrived in Australia last November. Implicit in the >letter was the US NSA's deeming it wrong somehow that I *did not* >renounce Baha'u'llah when I resigned. As if there is something wrong >with that. > Anyhow, it seems that my situation was discussed in cyberspace in >my absence, and I was merely wondering if you've kept any of the old >messages. > May this message find you well. > Best regards, Nima Hazini > >It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon >by every eye, worshiped in every object of worship and pursued in the >seen and the unseen. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find >Him if they look within to their source, origin and primordial nature. > > Ibn `Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyyah > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 7:56 AM Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) Thank you for explaining the below to me. Do you have any documentary proof of your accusations? They are serious. For myself and for many Bahais and non-Bahais evidence would be necessary.... Steven Scholl has forwarded his "Crisis of Faith" to me and I shall shortly add it to my web site. Thanks for mentioning it to me. I don't have any old messages regarding you other than apparently the few that I saved for other reasons and which are on my web site.... Sorry. Perhaps someone else can help you out there.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Nima Hazini To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, May 15, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) >Dear Mr Glaysher: > A clarification to your reply: I am a non-Bahai. I formally >resigned from the Baha'i religion about a year-and-a-half ago since it >has become increasingly apparent to me that the values and techings of >the Baha'i Founders have been supplanted by a rigid, uncompromising >fundamentalism from the top. And, yes, while there are many individual >Baha'i administrators who are among individuals of high moral calibre, >rectitude and moderation, exemplifying the best of what their Founders >taught, their voices unfortunately have been drowned by those less so >who have strait-jacketed the Baha'i faith into what it was never >intended by its Founders. As such, I have chosen to follow a different >path and one which I feel accords more fully with the true spiritual >intent of the teachings and universalism of Baha'u'llah: i.e. Sufism. > My case, which is mentioned among the logs under Juan Cole, is the >following: last winter the American NSA sent a highly slanderous letter >to the Australian NSA the conclusion of which was to encourage Baha'is, >and especially the youth, in Australia to shun me because I had left the >Baha'i faith and "become a follower of Sufism." I had neither informed >the NSA of my current affiliation or that I was temporarily moving to >Australia - which raises the issue of spies and informants in the Baha'i >community. The letter is sent, btw, one full year after I had withdrawn >and had severed any formal contact with the Baha'i community and a few >weeks before I arrived in Australia last November. Implicit in the >letter was the US NSA's deeming it wrong somehow that I *did not* >renounce Baha'u'llah when I resigned. As if there is something wrong >with that. > Anyhow, it seems that my situation was discussed in cyberspace in >my absence, and I was merely wondering if you've kept any of the old >messages. > May this message find you well. > Best regards, Nima Hazini > >It is He who is revealed in every face, sought in every sign, gazed upon >by every eye, worshiped in every object of worship and pursued in the >seen and the unseen. Not a single one of His creatures can fail to find >Him if they look within to their source, origin and primordial nature. > > Ibn `Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyyah > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 8:18 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; talisman; Steve Scholl Subject: "Crisis of Faith" Dear Mr. Scholl, Thank you for forwarding your statement "Crisis of Faith," addressed to the Universal House of Justice, to me. I've added it to my web site. I look forward to reading it.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, May 16, 1998 8:21 AM Subject: "Crisis of Faith" Some Bahais and non-Bahais might find interesting Steven Scholl's message to the Universal House of Justice, "Crisis of Faith," which I've just made available on my web site given below. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 17, 1998 9:20 AM To: Steven Scholl Subject: "A Modest Proposal" Can you email me a copy of "A Modest Proposal"? I'd like to add it to my web site. I read it some time ago via Juan Cole or the Talisman archives or somewhere. Can't find it now on my hard drive. I'd appreciate it. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:26 AM To: White Cloud Subject: Re: "A Modest Proposal" Thanks. I just finished uploading it to my web site. Was there a single author I should give credit to? The copy from Juan's site isn't clear. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:34 AM Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant (part 1) Roger Reini wrote in message <3563d96a.177672171@news.newsguy.com>... >The following is part 1 of a draft article on the Covenant by Rick >Schaut. It is intended to be a companion to Brent Poirier's "The Flow >of Divine Authority. I am posting this on Rick's behalf, for he does >not have regular access to this newsgroup. Let me get this right.... He votes NO on the first proposal for talk.religion.bahai, preventing its creation, and now he asks someone else to post to alt.religion.bahai for him? He has no one but himself to blame.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:38 AM Subject: "A Modest Proposal" I've added "A Modest Proposal" from the Dialogue debacle to my web site, for those interested. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:42 AM Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 Roger Reini wrote in message <35606adb.36458101@news.newsguy.com>... >This is the second part of Rick Schaut's draft article on the Covenant >of Baha'u'llah (posted at the request of Rick Schaut). Rick Schaut has always impressed me as an extreme Bahai fanatic. I'd never bother reading anything he'd write on the covenant, or much of anything else for that matter.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > > >Say: True liberty consisteth.... "These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:53 AM To: William Collins Subject: Re: Religious Freedom of Conscience; Liberal/Conservative William Collins wrote in message <"kLZ6vB.A.UZG.4WLV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... I'd like to respond to your statement but given the "moderators" suppressing of my last message to you a week or so ago, as they have done in the past, doubt any real discussion or exchange on such serious issues can take place on srb. If you're sincere let me suggest you repost your message to alt.religion.bahai, bahai-faith@makelist.com, or talk.religion.misc, where there are no "moderators" to interfer, allowing only your voice or opinion to be heard.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: Re: Religious Freedom of Conscience; Liberal/Conservative William Collins wrote in message <"kLZ6vB.A.UZG.4WLV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... I'd like to respond to your statement but given the "moderators" suppressing of my last message to you a week or so ago, as they have done in the past, doubt any real discussion or exchange on such serious issues can take place on srb. If you're sincere let me suggest you repost your message to alt.religion.bahai, bahai-faith@makelist.com, or talk.religion.misc, where there are no "moderators" to interfer, allowing only your voice or opinion to be heard.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 1998 7:01 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Leaving Faith You ignore below that srb has suppressed my response to you and others in this thread.... ----Original Message----- From: Michael Buonsanto To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, May 17, 1998 5:12 PM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >Dear Fred, > >You are correct. There is nothing in the writings of 'Abdu'l-Baha or >the Guardian justifying suppression of others' opinions and views. >However, there is plenty advising us to show love to each other and >to be united. That is all I am trying to promote. If the Baha'is >argue in a contentious manner there is no hope of them unitying >the world or even being a unifying force in the world. What's the >point of being a Baha'i if not to promote love and unity? As the >Master said, if we don't do this, atheism would be preferable. > >You don't know how orthodox my thoughts are- you may be surprized >at what goes on in my head. I definitely share your aim of trying to >promote openness and diversity of views in the Baha'i community. >However, IMHO, it is very important to express all our views with >extreme courtesy and respect for others. Those you call orthodox >may not be right all the time, but for the most part they are >sincere. Often it is not what you say, but how you say it that's >important. I think that is the message in the quotations I posted. > >Regards, >Michael > >>Michael Buonsanto wrote in message <"jEthn.A.FLD.zpnV1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>>Dear Friends, >>> >>>It might be a good idea to recall the spirit in which 'Abdu'l-Baha >>>has advised us to carry out our consultation: >> >> >>I don't see any place in your quotes justifying the suppression of >>others' opinion and views, as the srb moderators have done in >>this thread to me refusing to permit me to respond while giving >>you and others the freedom to state your orthodox views.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Michael Buonsanto (mikejb@ma.ultranet.com or mjb@mit.edu) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 8:51 AM Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant (part 1) Roger Reini wrote in message <35645f57.80401480@news.newsguy.com>... >On Mon, 18 May 1998 06:34:43 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: >>Let me get this right.... He votes NO on the first proposal for >>talk.religion.bahai, preventing its creation, and now he asks >>someone else to post to alt.religion.bahai for him? >> >>He has no one but himself to blame.... > >Whatever... the fact is that he doesn't have regular access to a.r.b >except through DejaNews or the equivalent, and he doesn't want to >register with it so that he can post an article or two. I saw nothing >wrong with honoring his request. I don't see anything wrong with it either, only ironic.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 8:52 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale's ongoing discussion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm John Noland wrote in message ... >Dale, you are completely out of line with this letter. Did you ever consider that if you >don't understand something I have said, you could simply ask me for clarification? >Apparently not. You use the term "cognitive dissonance" a couple of times in this letter. >This is just a fancy way of saying that I'm being intentionally deceptive or a cloaked way >of calling me a liar. > >Have you actually been reading the letters I've been sending you? It's clear that you >haven't read them very thoroughly, because you don't have a clue where our differences lie >on this issue. This is made crystal-clear by your statement, > >But we find that His "subordination" to the Father is an aspect in keeping with the >Christian doctrine of Jesus' FULL deity that is common to both the Early Christian's >belief AND CONTEMPORARY Christian doctrine, both of which obviously feel that HE was still >FULLY GOD. As I have pointed out, in this line of argument you selectively pick only the >passages that reveal His submissive humanity, and use them to paint a one sided Baha'i >version of Jesus' Station that ignores the other Scriptural side revealing His deity. Your >observation is irrelevant because Christian doctrine has always recognized the submissive >human aspect of Jesus. We have always believed that He was FULLY (perfect) man, as well as >FULLY God. > >If you've been following along Dale, Baha'is DO acknowledge the dual nature of Jesus >Christ. Both divine and human. Every time I describe the Baha'i conception of Christ, you >respond by saying "That's God, John." So, the Baha'i description of Christ is high enough >for you to make that declaration, yet you feel we belittle Him somehow by saying that no >matter how great Christ is, the Father is greater. > >You don't understand what I mean by subordination. Using your terminology, this means He >is fully subordinate to the Father within the Godhead and doesn't have anything to do with >His dual nature. This "subordination" was the position of the majority of Orthodox >Christianity up until the Council of Nicaea. Here are some representative quotes from the >primary sources that show this concept quite clearly: > >Justin Martyr from his First Apology - ...that we reasonably worship Him, having learned >that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the >prophetic Spirit in the third... > >Tertullian, from Against Praxeas - Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that >I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I >assert His distinction as second to the Father. > >Origen, from Contra Celsus - For we who say that the visible world is under the government >to Him who created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than the >Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, >"The Father who sent Me is greater than I." And none of us is so >insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God. > > >The Council of Nicaea granted the Son absolute equality in the Godhead with the Father by >the use of the un-biblical term homoousios, which laid the groundwork for the Holy Trinity >proper a few years later. There was no legitimate theological or scriptural reason for >this step to be taken. It was not necessary to defend against Arianism or any other heresy >current at that time. So, please notice in the history that it says, "Jesus as an equal >part of the Godhead." The history section was decidedly and intentionally narrow in its >focus. It hit upon all of the major points of the Holy Trinity's development, and it >presented each of the major figure's primary contribution to the final doctrine. It also >presented the major heresies that helped shape Christian thought in this area. There was >no misrepresentation of any factual information whatsoever. If the paper had a "Baha'i >slant" that tried to present early Christian views as if they were completely compatible >with the Baha'i viewpoint, why would it specifically say that none of these views match >the Baha'i view in the summary? Origen's views are close to the Baha'i concept on many >levels. The major variance is that he believed the human soul to be pre-existent and >eternal, whereas Baha'is believe the soul comes into existence at the moment of conception >and is eternal thereafter. The point of the paper was that early Christian views don't >match your views. You might be able to see how they got here from there, but that's >irrelevant, because there's just too much speculation in between. When you state that you >know the intentions of the Apostles, I should be able to go back to early Christianity and >find an exact representation of your views. But, when I investigate early Christianity, I >find profound differences between your views and those of the early Christians on many >fundamental issues. Therefore, you have no right to claim superiority over anyone else >when it comes to intepretation of the Bible or to claim that you exclusively know the >intentions of the Apostles. Since your views don't match up with those of early >Christians, then that confirms that all you really know is speculative Christian doctrine >or Dogma from centuries after the fact. > >Christian scholar's refer to the process I presented as systematic theology. I believe the >people involved were sincere and I believe in most instances they made the best possible >decisions based on the information they had to work with, up until the Council of Niceae. >What was most questionable about the process was whether it should have been undertaken at >all. The things the Apostles taught should have been sufficient. Unfortunately, heresies >abounded, as you and I have both said, that forced the issue. Some heresies came from >outside the church and the people behind them were enemies of the Church. Others came from >within the Church itself by people who loved Jesus and were just searching for the truth. >These latter ideas were presented as theories within the Church. They were then tested and >if they proved 1) popular, 2) logically or philosophically sound and 3) scripturally >defensible, they were given serious consideration. If an idea didn't meet all three of >these criteria it was generally discarded and branded a heresy. You want to attribute >infallibility to this process. The people involved in the process were just normal people >and were not infallible. At times, a consesus could not be reached by these people, >resulting in schisms within the church or in outright splits. Proof: How many >denominations of Christianity are there today? These many denominations are a direct >result of people trying to come up with answers to the mysteries inherent in Scripture and >then not allowing those answers (guesses) to be questioned by making them into official >doctrine. Each and every Christian denomination believes it has an exclusive hold on the >truth. Unfortunately, not everyone can be right. It's a fact that the Holy Trinity is a >speculative doctrine based on three hundred plus years of best guesses. It is scripturally >defensible (barely), but it isn't inherently scriptural as you say. You contend that your >argument derives naturally from direct exegesis of Scripture, yet your exegesis is >completely colored by speculative doctrines. > >In a previous paper, I showed you two verses from Scripture that >showed that the authority to judge could be given to the Apostles. The Apostles are not in >the Godhead. Therefore, the authority to judge can be conferred outside the Godhead. The >logic of your response seemed intentionally befuddled. There is no ambiguity to this idea. >If the authority to judge can be conferred outside the Godhead, then it can not be the >basis for the Son being equal to or superior to the Father within the Godhead and sets a >clear precedence for other duties that are the sole domain of God to be likewise conferred >outside the Godhead. > >I have failed to address your contention that when Jesus said, "Before Abraham was, I AM", >he was definitively stating that He was God. In my opinion, this is nothing more than >English translators putting their own theological spin on this verse. If you look at >German-language Bibles, for example, they don't have this verse translated in this way. >When noted Greek scholar Richmond Lattimore translated from the original Greek, he >translated it as, "I am from before Abraham was born." This makes much more sense than the >theologically biased translation most English-language Bibles use. It fits as the answer >to the question asked and is an audacious or blasphemous enough statement for the people >to pick up stones to throw at Him. After all, He is claiming to be much more than a mere >human by claiming to have lived since before Abraham. > >Now, I'm going to discuss some things unrelated to Scripture. The letter I'm responding to >is enough to make me just as soon not continue this discussion. In view of everything >that's transpired between us, it's the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. >After reading my criticism of you that follows, you may feel the same way. In the end, I'm >leaving it up to you whether we continue or not. When I did this in another paper you >called it the "passive-aggressive tyranny" trick. Whatever. I find it revealing that you >and Beckwith get that reaction from people often enough that you've coined a term for it. >You then played the innocent little lamb acting as if you aren't guilty of any >transgressions yourself. Now, I feel like I've been exceedingly polite with you and I've >either tolerated or ignored your constant pot shots. I've made mistakes in our discussion, >and I've taken my lumps for them. I have no problem with that. I've never done this >before, so these things are to be expected. I've had no other goal for this discussion >than to personally learn more about our faiths. I don't believe that you have any genuine >interest in learning about the Baha'i Faith. With every exchange it becomes clearer and >clearer to me that this is true. I find it amazing that you know less about Baha'i beliefs >today than the day we started. You would rather play word games with the things I've >written than actually try to learn anything. What your real motivation is, I don't know. I >do know that you have no interest in acquiring an accurate understanding of the Baha'i >Faith. > >You've used the Latin phrase "argumentum ad hominem" to describe the methods used by >Baha'is. You're the undisputed king of "ad hominem" Dale. You resort to this tactic when >you fall short in your arguments. It is quite natural and I've noticed you've utilized it >quite extensively in all of your letters. You ridicule and chide incessantly in an attempt >to gain the intellectual and spiritual high ground, without having to earn it first. If >you do have a right to the high ground, it will be manifested after an honest discussion, >and we'll see in the end if you have the right to stand above others, judging them and >their motives. Earning the high ground is not as simple as arrogating it. > >You resort to flinging adjectives and phrases around that are loaded with negative >connotations. Simpler folks obviously applaud your tactics and fall dead before them, but >not everyone succumbs to weak debate tactics. Your colorful descriptions, such as >"Bahaism", "Baha'i presuppositions", "its own little doctrinal closet", "false religion", >"symbolic redefinition", "materialistic naturalism", etc... bring nothing of value to our >discussion. Up to this point I've simply ignored or tolerated this behavior, letting it go >for the most part without comment. You mistake this for acquiescence on my part. Your >arguments are generally weak. You consistently embellish your viewpoints with >extra-scriptural nonsense. You consistently make unconvincing proofs and then finish each >statement with some bold proclamation about how great your argument is or you fall back on >statements like "within the broad intended biblical context", "Scripture unmistakably >proclaims", etc... that serve to make your OPINIONS appear more authoritative than they >are. > >This is the end of all of that. If we are to continue, we're going to have to back up and >start with ONE issue where we have a legitimate disagreement. I will be courteous. I will >insist on the same from you. There will be Zero Tolerance for the sort of stuff I've >talked about here. If you're agreeable to this, I would like you to begin. Under a new >thread, with a new topic heading I would like to know your beliefs on the Incarnation of >Christ. In other words, tell me specifically the process by which Jesus was God Incarnate. >How are the human body, the human soul and God interrelated in the person of Jesus Christ. >I would like you to be short and concise. State your opinion, provide supporting passages >from the NT and refrain from extra-scriptural embellishment. There is no reason for you to >prove the dual nature of Christ. As much as it bothers me to do so, I'm going to refrain >from posting the responses I've prepared and I'm letting your other responses stand >uncontested. I won't respond to any other communications from you, except in the form >outlined here. If you aren't agreeable to all of this or if you just aren't capable of >living up to this agreement, then consider this the end of our discussion. > >John > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 8:58 AM Subject: Re: long, repeated, excessive posts I recall Robert Frost's lovely verse: "Surely there is something wrong with wanting to silence any song." My opinion only.... I find Dale and John's discussion particularly interesting though I don't always read everything in detail and have not participated.... I defend Roger too.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm bintyaya@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6jqk8m$pso$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Guess what. When I see part 8 of 500, or one of 8, or see the same >thread posted over and over again, or see one person hogging the threads, >I don't read more than one (the first) in the thread. Sometimes I don't >even read that many. For example, Joel, I only read one of yours. I >never read Raymond's anymore, nor do I read John and Dale's ongoing dialog b >because it's getting nowhere. Why? > >I know Joel's stance. Being as he thinks he's the Guardian, he feels he has >to justify himself. Sorry. I've met you, your father, Mason Remey, Donald >Harvey, Joseph Pepe. I won't even begin on my own frequent >observations--made by a nine-year old child--about Mason Remey, the con man >who lived with him (Pepe), and the others. > >Raymond is off-topic. I don't even care what he has to say about anything. > >John and Dale need to use private e-mail. > >Roger--once is enough, okay? > >Michela >Bint Yaya > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 9:08 AM Subject: Re: leaving the Faith provi@snet.net wrote in message <"39fRpC.A.sBG.nPvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> Can you share with us what you mean by leaving the Bahais behind? >> >Simple... don't associate with them anymore. The only Baha'is I >associated with, and still do, are my children who are grown now. And >on occassion with their father, but only because we still had some >unfinished divorce/custody business to thrash around. Other Baha'is who >I meet along the way, and who remember me, always express a "surprised" >"My you're looking well!!" - as if maybe because I've left the Faith I >shouldn't be and I do. I just lovingly grin. It's part of the myth that you're supposed to become a monster.... Why do you believe that is? Do you or others find that a valid interpretation of the Bahai Writings? >I browse through this Baha'i listing - deleting mostly 95% out of >disinterest. Though I struggle with deleting the Writings.... Dare I reveal I delete above 99%.... I prefer reading the Writings from a book when they're not being cited for polemical reasons, as they always are on srb.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 5:58 AM Subject: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts >I too am enjoying the discussion between John and Dale, although I find Dale's >arguments remind me of Mao Tse Tung in that he states an opinion and jumps >from that to an assertion of fact, under the guise of "we know this to be >true..." >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 6:34 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: All religions unified this century? (Baha'i) I believe you're quite right about the obstructionist mentality among the new crowd of moderators at soc.religion.bahai. They are worse than the last contingent.... Obscurantism is what I would now call their general approach, which starkly violates the liberalism of the Bahai Writings, such as Abdu'l-Baha's.... I'd like to add your message to my web site if you don't mind.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <3562eb86.0@vlinsvr>... >Having had repeated problems with the moderators at >soc.religion.bahai in posting this, I hope to get some discussion >going in talk.religion.misc. An explanation of the difficulties >with srb will follow the main part of the post. > >In Baha'i World Faith, p. 280, `Abdu'l Baha writes that "fierce >and contending religions, hostile creeds and divergent beliefs >will reconcile and associate, notwithstanding their former >hatreds and antagonism. Through the liberalism of human attitude >demanded in this radiant [20th] century they will blend together >in perfect fellowship and love...The age has dawned when human >fellowship will become a reality. THE CENTURY HAS COME WHEN ALL >RELIGIONS SHALL BE UNIFIED..." [caps mine for emphasis] > >My question to Baha'is is how they can reconcile the conflicting >beliefs that 1) `Abdu'l Baha was infallible in the words found in >Baha'i-published literature and 2) that the unification of >religions in the future can be accomplished only by their members all >becoming Baha'is. While it's clear that AB's vision is far from >fully manifest as this century closes, it's also quite evident >that the spirit of ecumenicism within Christianity and among >world religions has made considerable advances since his time. >But AB's vision of religious unity in the future as depicted in >the passage above is exactly what I as a New Age Christian long >for and believe in, and 180 degrees away from the universal >domination of one religion's institutions and beliefs which has become >the prevailing expectation among contemporary Baha'is. > >That was the gist of what I wanted to post to srb a couple of >months ago when someone else posted the line about "The century >has come when all religions shall be unified." I waited until >after the thread was gone, but posted in reference to that >recently posted quote. Srb moderator Bill Hyman refused to >accept my post, saying he could only accept references to the >Baha'i writings if they were *documented* from Baha'i sources. (A >rule invented for my case, and never apparent in the posts from >Baha'is, AFAIK.) His tone was rather unpleasant at this point, >saying "I don't have time to look for it" and "since Baha'is >believe in independent investigation of truth, you need to find >that quote before you can post on the subject." Well, I spent a >fruitless hour going through Dejanews, like looking for a needle >in a haystack. Finally gave up and wrote back to Hyman >(politely) saying that I couldn't find the post, but could I >simply *inquire* on srb if anyone remembered the quote in >question? At this point he got really nasty, insisted that there >was no such quote, couldn't possibly be, `Abdu'l Baha would never >have said such a thing. And made it clear that I was getting the >"enemy of the Faith" treatment. So I gave up. But last week I >found, on Fred G.'s website, a link to a search engine for Baha'i >texts which allowed me to call up all AB's passages with the word >"century" in them. Took five minutes at most to find the passage >in question. Hyman almost surely knew of this resource and deliberately >chose not to tell me about it in order to prevent my posting on >the topic to srb. > >When I did find the passage, I posted it to srb on Friday with >similar commentary to what is above, and a single line about >having been previously subject to harsh unfriendliness from a >moderator who denied such a passage existed. By Tuesday I had >neither seen the post on srb or gotten a rejection letter, so I >posted again, this time addressing myself to a moderator and >asking what the story was. Michele Smith answered me immediately >saying that she was now on duty as moderator, had not been >before, and would check into the situation. But I have heard >nothing now a day later. > >There's a real problem over at srb, in my opinion based on >recent dealings. Earlier moderators like Dick Detweiler or Alma >Engels would never had behaved in this obstructionist manner. > >Cheers, >KPJ ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 6:41 AM Subject: Dale on Christ (Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts) K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <3562faa6.0@vlinsvr>... > >Having read parts of Dale's website and John's recent letter, I >must confess that my sympathies are with the Baha'i side of this >particular argument. There's a dreadful arrogance found in a >certain kind of Christian who says "My beliefs *are* Christianity >itself." Dale is full of that attitude. As a Christian I find >that kind of posturing particularly harmful to any kind of >interfaith dialogue. Dale does not speak for all Christians with >his attacks on "false religions" and his insistence that he knows >the whole truth about Jesus. As a former Catholic, I agree.... Humility is a cardinal virtue.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 6:43 AM To: talisman; K. Paul Johnson; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Re your site (Bahai) K. Paul Johnson wrote in message <35631c11.0@vlinsvr>... >Having seen both the smiling and the snarling face of Baha'i >attitudes toward ex-Baha'is, I can see that Maryam and Robert and >Nima are all telling the truth. My own experience in leaving the >Faith back in 1974 was much as Maryam and Robert have described. >Kept all my old Baha'i friends, got no hassles, for years >regarded the Faith with some nostalgic fondness, hired a Baha'i >employee and sold a house to Baha'is years after withdrawal. >Absolutely no problems in relating to Baha'is. > >But on the other hand I have seen the extreme hostility directed >at Nima and people like him; Baha'is who are also scholars of >religion and/or history, who cannot express a hair's breadth >deviation or doubt from the party line without having someone >swoop down on them with accusations of covenant-breaking. That >Inquisitorial atmosphere has really become apparent in the wake >of the Talisman I debacle. Nima, by sympathizing with people >like Juan Cole and Steven Scholl, ended up being at least >unofficially an "enemy of the Faith" after withdrawal, and thus >suffered treatment that neither Maryam, Robert's wife nor I even >experienced. It's called "Bahai" love.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:18 AM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Re: Bahai: new mailing list - web site >I can read alt.religion.bahai at home but not at work, and cannot >post from that account. I can read talk.religion.misc at work >and can post there. Is there anything to be gained in that case >in joining your list, or will it just repeat things already read? It would be repetitious. It's really intended for people who can't access alt.religion.bahai at all. Please "cc" it with anything you post and encourage others to do the same. I've been forwarding to it but can't keep up with all the messages myself. >BTW have had an unpleasant series of encounters with Bill Hyman, >moderator of srb, and will be posting about it to srm. I've just forwarded it to alt.religoin.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com, which will accept posts from non-subscribers. When you post to talk.religion.bahai you might crosspost to alt.religion.bahai and makelist.com too. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:30 AM Subject: fw Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 & "horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers" -----Original Message----- From: Burl Barer To: Frederick Glaysher ; talisman ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 12:20 PM Subject: Re: Article on the Covenant, part 2 >At 06:42 AM 5/18/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>Rick Schaut has always impressed me as an extreme Bahai fanatic. I'd >>never bother reading anything he'd write on the covenant, or much of >>anything else for that matter.... > > HA HA HA HA HA. > >Rick is a polite, considerate, gentleman who is both well-read and >well-mannered. I would be most interested in reading what he has to say. > >Warm regards, >Burl Barer > I cite as evidence: -----Original Message----- From: Rick Schaut To: Baha'i Discuss Date: Saturday, October 11, 1997 12:01 PM Subject: RE: Breakdown of UseNet ( Was talk.religion.Badi ) >Dear Keith and Friends, > >> From: Keith James [SMTP:kjames@vision.net.au] >> I would like to see just how many pro-votes there are and allow [TRB] >> to form. If it turns out to be a place of dissention, then only the >> steadfast >> Baha'is will stick with it and it will eventually drop out. It could >> in >> fact be a very effective teaching tool, demonstrating the qualities >> and >> virtues of Baha'is. >> >This doesn't quite capture the possibilities for talk.religion.bahai. >First, let's understand that what happens in unmoderated USENET is >multiple asynchronous discussions. Unlike a moderated newsgroup, a post >to an unmoderated newsgroup, for all practical purposes, is either a >part of a discussion or an invitation to join a discussion. > >Secondly, the texts regarding successorship within the Faith are so >clear that anyone who would choose to become a Covenant breaker can only >be motivated by a desire to cause dissension and strife. To engage such >a person in any form of discussion, whether it be in one's home or in a >USENET newsgroup, is to allow them an opportunity to spread that >dissension and strife. When someone's sole desire is to pick a fight, >it's best to simply walk away no matter how hard that person hits you >the first time. > >So, my fear regarding any unmoderated newsgroup bearing the name >"Baha'i" is that it could become a forum for Covenant breakers where any >attempt I make to respond to their claims is, itself, a violation of the >very principles I am sowrn, as a Baha'i, to uphold. This, I don't wish >to be put in the position of having to choose between violating some >very core principles of the Baha'i Faith regarding dissension and unity, >and allowing the horrid reasoning of Covenant breakers to stand >uncontested. > >I would submit that it was this very reason that TRB was voted down six >months ago. The issue was raised then, and the proponents of the >newsgroup swept it asside by repeated insistence on the binding nature >of what are, in reality, only rough guidelines regarding voting for or >against the formation of USENET newsgroups. Even now, we see a lot of >talk about "subversion" of democratic principles and the "breakdown" of >USENET, but still no proponent of talk.religion.bahai has deigned to >address this issue in terms that are satisfying for Baha'is. It is >swept aside, and, until such time as someone wishes to address the issue >of Covenant breakers, the proposed formation of talk.religion.bahai will >get voted down again. > > >Warmest Regards, >Rick Schaut ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:39 AM To: talisman Subject: fw re Talisman -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, May 20, 1998 5:11 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: Internet - norms and values (normen en waarden) >As a witness to the rise and fall of Talisman I, may I offer some >comments on passages from the letters of the House: >> ------------------------------------------ >> >> >From a letter of 20 July 1997: >> >> Not surprisingly, the abuse of Internet discussions on the Faith and >> its Teachings has had the effect of greatly distressing friends who >> became aware of it. > >"Perceived" abuse would be more accurate, as the way this is >stated implies that the original "wrong" was the way more liberal >or critical Baha'is discussed certain issues. My recollection is >rather that all went smoothly until more >conservative/fundamentalist Baha'is came on board, were outraged, >and started an atmosphere of contention. > > That the response has included, as your letter >> suggests, a degree of intemperate criticism, inappropriate comment and >> unjust accusation is lamentable, but also not surprising, for >> contentiousness begets contention. > >This has the ring of blaming the victim, since the vast majority >of personal attacks were made against the people who are >implicitly accused of "starting the trouble" and they rarely >responded with comparable ferocity. When they did, it was after >continued personally hostile treatment from their fellow >believers. Thus I would say that the contentiousness of the >conservative/fundamentalists was what led to the contention by >the scholars. Going back over the files of Talisman, one would >find that Scholl, Cole, Linda Walbridge, Hazini, and other >supposed "contentious" people were actually getting along just >fine until attacks from the right wing started. And even when >under attack they never matched their antagonists' level of >hostility as I recall. > > You should be confident that the >> House of Justice will not permit a climate of intolerance to prosper >> in the Baha'i community, no matter from what cause it arises. > >I'd love to believe that but cannot in light of the evidence. > >snip >> >From a letter dated 8 Feb 1998 >> >> Some of the protagonists in the discussions on the Internet have >> implied that the only way to attain a true understanding of historical >> events >> and of the purport of the sacred and historical records of the Cause >> of God is through the rigid application of methods narrowly defined in >> a materialistic framework. They have even gone so far as to stigmatize >> whoever proposes a variation of these methods as wishing to obscure >> the truth rather than unveil it. > >This is quite a misrepresentation of the discourse I remember >from Talisman. I do remember when Mark Foster told me that he >had been writing to the House accusations of this nature about >Cole et al. I was horrified at this turn of events, which ended a >year or two of friendly relations between us. Juan, John and >others never said "the only way to attain a true understanding" >was through either rigidity or materialism. They said rather >that the only way to write about history, *if one is a historian >responsible to the professional standards of the field*, is by >adhering to those standards. And the attacks they got from >fellow Baha'is who were not historians stigmatized them as "weak >in the Covenant" etc. No one was stigmatized for "proposing a >variation on those methods." All published Baha'i histories have >varied from those methods more or less, and they were not >attacked. It was rather those who consistently attacked the use >of scholarly standards in approaching Baha'i history who were >(rightly, IMO) accused of wanting to stifle the search for truth. >> >snip >Lots of reasonable comments here, but-- > >> unscholarly attacks and calumnies which may periodically be injected >> into their discussions by the ill-intentioned. Discussion with those >> who sincerely raise problematic issues, whether they be Baha'is or >> not, and whether -- if the latter -- they disagree with Baha'i >> teachings, can be beneficial and enlightening. However, to continue >> dialogue with those who have shown a fixed antagonism to the Faith, >> and have demonstrated their imperviousness to any ideas other than >> their own, is usually fruitless and, for the Baha'is who take part, >> can be burdensome and even spiritually corrosive. > >It's so easy to see "fixed antagonism to the Faith" and easy >to be blind to one's own fixed antagonism to anyone who questions >certain elements of the Faith. Easy to accuse others of >imperviousness to alternate ideas, easy to be blind to one's own >rigidity. I am sorry for the breakdown in communication that has >occurred, but can see here a consistent note of placing most of the >burden of blame on the wrong shoulders. Fortunately there are >thousands of pages of documents from Talisman I which will allow >future historians to disentangle the facts of the matter from the >interpretation they have received. > >Cheers, >KPJ >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:42 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? -----Original Message----- From: Bud Polk To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? >Dear friends, > >I was browsing around and found this list. I am wondering what agenda Fred Glaysher - the listowner - has. There's a statement that the list is unmoderated and for discussion of Baha'i history, theology, etc. But the majority of the posts are attacks - direct or indirect - on soc.religion.bahai. Where is the discussion of history, theology, etc.? > >I find it interesting that there have been 216 posts and 167 are from Glaysher (77.3%). The next highest was a person who posted 16 times (7.4%). I'm on many lists and I am a listowner. I've never seen a list where 3/4 of the posts were from one person - listowner or otherwise. What is Glaysher's agenda? > >I also visited Glaysher's site on freedom of conscience. I wondered what the agenda was at that website. What audience - Baha'is or non-Baha'is? Among the links, one is to a website maintained by a Muslim who calls Baha'u'lllah an "anti-christ." What's the agenda here? The site sows doubt, confusion and misinformation > >Both this list and Glaysher's websites are trojan horses to my mind - attacks on the Faith disguised as a voice of "conscience." > >But I defend Glaysher's right to maintain this list (even though it appears he is mainly talking to himself) and to maintain the website. He is free to say whatever he wants. > >It's an interesting tatic that Galysher uses - when anyone disagrees with him that person is yet another example of "censorship." Or he calls the posts attacks ad hominem - a little hard to swallow after his attack on Rick Schaut. > >Best regards, >Bud Polk >cybrmage@dave-world.net >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 7:42 AM Subject: fw [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? -----Original Message----- From: Bud Polk To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:23 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? >Dear friends, > >I was browsing around and found this list. I am wondering what agenda Fred Glaysher - the listowner - has. There's a statement that the list is unmoderated and for discussion of Baha'i history, theology, etc. But the majority of the posts are attacks - direct or indirect - on soc.religion.bahai. Where is the discussion of history, theology, etc.? > >I find it interesting that there have been 216 posts and 167 are from Glaysher (77.3%). The next highest was a person who posted 16 times (7.4%). I'm on many lists and I am a listowner. I've never seen a list where 3/4 of the posts were from one person - listowner or otherwise. What is Glaysher's agenda? > >I also visited Glaysher's site on freedom of conscience. I wondered what the agenda was at that website. What audience - Baha'is or non-Baha'is? Among the links, one is to a website maintained by a Muslim who calls Baha'u'lllah an "anti-christ." What's the agenda here? The site sows doubt, confusion and misinformation > >Both this list and Glaysher's websites are trojan horses to my mind - attacks on the Faith disguised as a voice of "conscience." > >But I defend Glaysher's right to maintain this list (even though it appears he is mainly talking to himself) and to maintain the website. He is free to say whatever he wants. > >It's an interesting tatic that Galysher uses - when anyone disagrees with him that person is yet another example of "censorship." Or he calls the posts attacks ad hominem - a little hard to swallow after his attack on Rick Schaut. > >Best regards, >Bud Polk >cybrmage@dave-world.net >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 2:32 PM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored 5-19-98 From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:31 PM Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am returning this submission to you unposted. It is inflammatory, rude, and untrue. Every person who participates on srb is requested to follow the charter. Nothing more, nothing less. The accusations you are making are ungrounded and false. The moderators simply follow the charter. Nothing more, nothing less. -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >RMckin6046 wrote in message <"71i_z.A.vXE.VphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >>In Christopher Nason's original posting on this topic he decried the >>"evangelicism" of the Baha'is... along with our hypocrisy and supremacist >>attitudes. > > >I believe he was criticizing the kind of thing so often found by Bahais and >non-Bahais when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai: The confusion >of teaching the Faith with distorting truth and freely held conscience or >suppressing it, so often done by the "moderators," not to mention their >hypocrisy, pretending they don't know what it is they're doing, etc.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 1998 2:32 PM Subject: SRB censored 5-19-98 From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:31 PM Dear Mr. Glaysher, I am returning this submission to you unposted. It is inflammatory, rude, and untrue. Every person who participates on srb is requested to follow the charter. Nothing more, nothing less. The accusations you are making are ungrounded and false. The moderators simply follow the charter. Nothing more, nothing less. -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith >RMckin6046 wrote in message <"71i_z.A.vXE.VphW1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >>In Christopher Nason's original posting on this topic he decried the >>"evangelicism" of the Baha'is... along with our hypocrisy and supremacist >>attitudes. > > >I believe he was criticizing the kind of thing so often found by Bahais and >non-Bahais when attempting to post to soc.religion.bahai: The confusion >of teaching the Faith with distorting truth and freely held conscience or >suppressing it, so often done by the "moderators," not to mention their >hypocrisy, pretending they don't know what it is they're doing, etc.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 1998 8:20 AM Subject: New K. Paul Johnson page on web site FW from bahai-faith: >Hi Fred, > >Sure, feel free to use it. I visited your website from home last >night through Internet Explorer, whereas at work I use text-only >Lynx. Attractive site, nice picture of you looking much less >ferocious than I'd imagined, well done. > >Cheers, >Paul No, I'm not so ferocious.... I'd like to think even a mild-mannered man, usually.... I've added several messages from you that I've gleaned from www.dejanews.com over the past year or so. I think many might find them representative of an interesting point of view.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:08 PM Subject: fw Re: Responding to JNoland #1 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35659DC1.6FEB@bellsouth.net>... >This is in response to John Noland's letter, Re: John&Dale&Jesus >Resurrection#1 from Tue, 5 May 1998. In this letter John continues to >argue that Abdul Baha does not reject the literal Resurrection of Jesus >Christ in his Some Answered Questions. He also keeps from taking a >definitive stand on this vital issue himself. And, in his review of the >Fireside Letters, he misunderstands just what my outlook in the >discussion represents in terms of a Christian - Baha'i dialogue. I will >set the apologetic effort I have been engaged in into its true >evangelical framework. It is not the "Dale Grider's personal biblical >interpretation or else" perspective that John accuses. > There are major, objective differences clearly represented in the >official doctrinal statements on both sides of the Resurrection issue, >Bible and Baha'i. John seems to see those differences as trivial yet >also seems to realize that any definitive stand on his own part will be >dangerously revealing of the genuine and vast nature of those >differences between Scripture and Baha'i doctrine. He has at times said >that Jesus WAS literally raised, and at other times that Jesus was just >a "human soul" and that only "the Christ", apart from Jesus, was raised >in some "literal" spiritual sense additional to Abdul Baha's >spiritualized redefinition, but not the person of "Jesus" in any literal >miraculous sense. He now says, > >"You also indicate that you think I'm arguing for the bodily >resurrection of Christ. That would not be true. I have never said I >believed in the bodily resurrection and have not presented it as such. I >might also add that I have never said that I didn't believe in the >bodily resurrection either." > And so it seems John is making it difficult to know just where he >stands. Indeed, I cannot seem to get you to make a committed statement >on the issue John. Abdul Baha specifically says that Resurrection of >Jesus in NOT a "material fact". But Jesus says, > > "I am not a ghost. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see >I have." > > If we agree to disagree, you siding with Abdul Baha, and I with >Scripture and the Words of Jesus, so be it. But John, you're not >conceding that this very definitive difference really even exists. The >texts demand such recognition on the issue, both Bible and Baha'i. >Obviously, from the two examples I just cited, the Baha'i writings and >the Bible do make statements that lead to very concrete differences with >Baha'i theology that are not so trivial, subtle or nonexistent as John >is attempting to demonstrate. > This example under consideration from Some Answered Questions is a >prime example. In that regard I must say that although I have seen the >common pattern of Baha'i redefining of biblical meaning to fit >predetermined beliefs that were brought to the text, John is the first >Baha'i I've seen do it even to his own religious leader's writings. I >have observed that, taken within its immediate context, the section >where Abdul directly answers the straightforward question about >Resurrection of "manifestations", is equally clearly answered <<ABDUL BAHA>>>, not some hypothetical materialist. John argues that the >broader context of some other more original document would put the >passage into a different context that would completely change the >meaning. He says, > > "SAQ is NOT a book that was "written" by Abdu'l Baha. It was compiled >by a woman named Laura Clifford Barney. ... In doing this, it made >editorial sense to arrange the book roughly by subject matter. ...in its >original form, the discussion of the Virgin Birth and the discussion of >the Resurrection are coupled together as part of the very same >discussion... My basic argument has been that in this passage Abdu'l >Baha is not demanding a purely symbolic interpretation of the >resurrection and that He is not >denying that the resurrection happened, for scientific or any other >reasons." > > Thus, John argues that I misinterpret due to what would be a natural >mistake caused by the change in context from an earlier original >document. But consider how that this "original" document which John >proposes, whose different context for the passage would so change the >meaning of the text, is beyond being rare in the extreme compared to the >published version of SAQ. Consider also how that the current popular >version is obviously one fully supported by the official Baha'i >authority and is even exclusive as the singular popular version. Thus we >find John's argument very unreasonable. For such an outlook as his would >have the established Baha'i authority giving license to a book that >could only hope to mislead readers by setting a very critical passage >into a context that distorts the plain meaning of the text, when some >other original version that lends completely different meaning to it is >readily available. Still, to take John's argument all the way out on the >limb he is going, I will perform an experiment with the text to see if >John's contention concerning the context of the passage is possible. >Understand, that the experiment is, in actuality, a gross exegetal sin! >(LOL). If we allow ourselves the luxury of cutting and pasting passages >together as John suggests we end up with the ability to mix and match >anything to suit our immediate purposes. I only do this hypothetically >with the published and Baha'i endorsed text of SAQ, as I say, to follow >John's suggestion out on the limb. Let's cut and paste the section on >the virgin birth with that of the Resurrection and see what we get. We >eliminate several sections that lie in between. John suggests that this >will make it clear that Abdul Baha is representing a hypothetical >materialist in his answer to the question, "What is the meaning of >Christ's Resurrection after three days?" > > >P87 > 17 > > THE BIRTH OF CHRIST > > Question.--How was Christ born of the Holy Spirit? > Answer.--In regard to this question, theologians and materialists >disagree. The theologians believe that Christ was born of the Holy >Spirit, but the materialists think this is impossible and inadmissible, >and that without doubt He had a human father. > In the &Qur'an it is said: "And We sent Our Spirit unto her, and >He appeared unto her in the shape of a perfect man," meaning that the >Holy Spirit took the likeness of the human form, as an image is >produced in a mirror, and he addressed Mary. > The materialists believe that there must be marriage, and say that >a living body cannot be created from a lifeless body, and without male >and female there cannot be fecundation. And they think that not only >with man, but also with animals and plants, it is impossible. For this >union of the male and female exists in all living beings and plants. >This pairing of things is even shown forth in the &Qur'an: "Glory be to >Him Who has created all the pairs: of such things as the earth >produceth, and of themselves; and of things which they know >not"+F2--that is to say, men, >animals and plants are all in pairs--"and of everything have We created >two kinds"--that is to say, We have created all the beings through >pairing. > Briefly, they say a man without a human father cannot be imagined. >In answer, the theologians say: "This thing is not impossible and >unachievable, but it has not been seen; and there is a great difference >between a thing which is impossible and one which is unknown. For >example, in former times the telegraph, which causes the East and the >West to communicate, was unknown but not impossible; photography and >phonography were unknown but not impossible." > The materialists insist upon this belief, and the theologians >reply: "Is this globe eternal or phenomenal?" The materialists answer >that, according to science and important discoveries, it is established >that it is phenomenal; in the beginning it was a flaming globe, and >gradually it became temperate; a crust was formed around it, and upon >this crust plants came into existence, then animals, and finally man. > The theologians say: "Then from your statement it has become >evident and clear that mankind is phenomenal upon the globe, and not >eternal. Then surely the first man had neither father nor mother, for >the existence of man is phenomenal. Is not the creation of man without >father and mother, even though gradually, more difficult than if he had >simply come into existence without a father? As you admit that the >first man came into existence without father or mother--whether it be >gradually or at once--there can remain no doubt that a man without a >human father is also possible and admissible; you cannot consider this >impossible; otherwise, you are illogical. For example, if you say that >this lamp has once been lighted without wick and oil, and then say that >it is impossible to light it without the wick, this is illogical." >Christ had a mother; the first man, as the materialists believe, had >neither father nor mother." > > The following commentary by an editor reveals that at this point >this particular line of discussion has ended, <<Jesus' birth has not yet ended.>>> The context has ALREADY changed at >this point away from the "materialist vs theologian" line of discussion >WITHIN the section on Jesus' birth, but BEFORE the section on Jesus' >Resurrection could possibly be seen to begin. > >"This conversation shows the uselessness of discussions upon such >questions; the teachings of &Abdu'l-Baha upon the birth of Christ will >be found in the following chapter." > > Therefore, and as is born out in the "greatness of Christ" section that >immediately follows, we find that there is no further mention of a >"materialist" vs "theologian" hypothetical argument. As the commentator >observes, the rest of the section, still speaking on Jesus birth, and >BEFORE the subject of Jesus Resurrection (in ANY contextual >interpretation), already has ended that hypothetical pro and con model >and the rest of the section has specifically already strictly turned to >"...the teachings of &Abdu'l-Baha...". From here to the end of the >section on Jesus' birth there is nothing said that is outside of Abdul >Baha's own teachings. All comments are from his intended perspective >alone. > > > Abdul Baha concludes the entire section, HIMSELF saying; > > "To conclude: the splendor and honor of the holy souls and the >Divine Manifestations come from Their heavenly perfections, bounties and >glory, and from nothing else." > > > Now we skip ahead and paste in the Resurrection section at this point. >As we read on from this point, we find that John's rationale for >relieving Abdul Baha of responsibility for his argument is still not >reasonable. The reasoned logic with which I had earlier demonstrated to >John that the Resurrection section's immediate context necessitates it >as representing Abdul Baha's OWN perspective still prevails. For there >is no continuity and no way of creating the continuity John suggests. >The Materialist vs Theologian discussion has already long since been >brought to a close, not only before the Resurrection section and the >ones we cut out that come before it, but even before the birth of Jesus >section concludes! > I then revisit my analysis of the Resurrection section that we herein >paste, noticing immediately that the new question, in and of itself, >establishes a COMPLETE BREAK with the context of the former topic that >is even more pronounced as we cut out the intervening sections as John >suggested. > > " THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST > > Question.--What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three >days? > Answer.--The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations <<of the body.>>>... > >(vs. Scripture, "I am not a ghost as a ghost does not have flesh and >bones as you see that I have") > >... and have no connection with material things..." > >(vs Scripture; "and they gave Him broiled fish and He ate it in their >presence). > > You John yourself comment, > "In the context of our discussion, this passage basically says that >the resurrection of Christ has a spiritual and divine signification, and >has no connection with material things." > But later you contradict yourself, (and Abdul Baha) by saying, > "Nowhere do the Baha'i writings explicitly deny the physical aspects of >Christ's resurrection. Likewise, nowhere do they explicitly affirm these >material aspects." > You need to reread the opening comments of Abdul Baha's answer to the >question John. He specifically denies that The Resurrection had ANY >connection to material things. How then can you suggest that, "Nowhere >do the Baha'i writings explicitly deny the physical aspects of Christ's >resurrection." That is simply a false statement according to what Abdul >Baha has just said? > > >Abdul Baha continues, > > "His resurrection from the interior of the earth <<it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material>>>" > > (vs. Scripture; Jesus' confrontation with "doubting Thomas") > > Observe that ALL of these contentions are those of ABDUL BAHA, NOT a >hypothetical materialist. Yet they contradict the clear teaching of >Scripture and the very Words of Jesus. > > Also observe that it is Abdul Baha himself who continues his own >argument saying, > > "Beside these explanations (<<ABDUL Baha also add...>>>), it has been established and proved by >science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, >where innumerable stars and planets revolve." > > He himself argues a MATERIALISTIC IMPOSSIBILITY for a literal >interpretation and goes on to confirm that perspective by offering a >SUBSTITUTIONARY meaning for the Resurrection and Ascension, not an >additional spiritual/symbolic one that we should somehow "add" to our >literal acceptance of it as John has sometimes suggested. The >"therefore, we say..." clearly embraces all that has been formerly said >in this immediate context as being the assertions of Abdul Baha who then >concludes, > > Therefore, we say that <<>> meaning of Christ's resurrection ><<>> as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the >martyrdom of Christ. ...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; >and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, >and began to serve the Cause of Christ...His religion found life; His >teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other >words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and >the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it." > Abdul SPECIFICALLY goes on to elaborate how he himself feels that a >literal view of the Resurrection has caused a mistaken perception that >Science is in conflict with Religion; > > "Such is <<>> meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this >was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the >meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has >been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in >opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension >of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to >the science of mathematics. But when <<>> truth of this subject >becomes clear, <<>>, science in no way >contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence >affirm it." > > Again, I submit that this argument DOES NOT have Science "affirming" >the Resurrection. It has the limitations of Science and mankind's >intellect DEFINING it. Even If you wish to insist that the argument at >this point (...<<>> that religion is in contradiction >to science...) is given hypothetically by Abdul Baha to represent some >materialist's objections, we still find that his appeasement of those >objections is by symbolizing the whole thing in deference to the >materialistic objection. For it is distinctly Abdul Baha himself who >conveniently fixes the "perceived" clash between Materialistic >naturalism and God's omnipotence, by forcing religion (and thus God) to >conform to the materialistic objection. ("...But when the truth of this >subject becomes clear, <<>>, science in no >way contradicts it"). Abdu'l's professed solution is to symbolize >anything concerning the Resurrection and Ascension that doesn't fit in >with materialistic acceptability, despite how specifically AGAINST >symbolism the biblical text reveals its intentions. It is an invalid and >irreligious hermeneutic. It is a materialistic defining that is against >the clear teaching of Scripture. Despite the cutting and pasting that >you suggested John, there is NO WAY around the fact that Abdul Baha >presents, himself, a materialistic argument by which he asserts the >impossibility of a literal interpretation for Jesus Resurrection and >Ascension. > The tone of much of your argument denies the POSSIBILITY that Abdul >Baha could ever present such a materialistically based argument. That >would make him a false teacher wouldn't it. And so you cannot accept the >revealed implications of his argument regardless of how black and white >he presents that argument. Your context argument fails. The presentation >is definitively that of Abdul Baha and his own conclusions have nothing >to do, in ANY context, with the hypothetical viewpoint of some would be >materialist. The materialistic basis of the argument and its conclusions >are Abdul Baha's alone. The implications are indeed telling in a fashion >that would be hard d to accept from your present viewpoint. > The fact is that Baha'i theology, in its insistence that "What Science >and the mind of man cannot fathom religion should reject", cannot help >but ultimately fall prey to the double standard that I have observed and >that began the discussion here on alt. Baha'i newsgroup. Within Baha'i >doctrine exists a fundamental double standard on the relationship of >Science and Religion. At times we find Baha'i leaders presenting utterly >materialistic arguments such as Abdul Baha does in our present example >from SAQ. This occurs chiefly when inconvenient beliefs from other >religions that center upon miraculous events interfere with Baha'i >presuppositions and need to be dismissed as "against Science and good >reason". As clearly presented in SAQ by Abdul Baha concerning the >Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, such Baha'i apologetic >argumentation is solidly grounded in materialistic naturalism. (Such and >Such miracles can't be taken "literally" because "Science has proven..." >so here is the TRUE meaning which is really only symbolic...) William >Sears uses the same materialistic apologetic in his book The Wine of >Astonishment. This Baha'i apologist's book is specifically targeted for >a Christian audience. In it Sears systematically dismisses the literal >reality of one biblical miracle after another on the basis of their >scientific impossibility, and the argumentation is specifically Baha'i >along the same line of materialistic reasoning used by Abdul Baha in the >passage from SAQ we have been considering. > At other times however, fully literal belief in supernatural miracles >is accepted in the absolute sense (as long as they fit in with Baha'i >presuppositions). I have clearly demonstrated the double standard time >and again. It is not "impossible" that Abdul Baha could present a >materialistic argument with which to refute Jesus literal physical >Resurrection only because we can find that he argues acceptance of the >literal supernatural elsewhere in his sayings John. For the observation >of his materialistic argument against select Christian miracles is only >one side of an observable DOUBLE STANDARD that lies inherent within the >overall belief system. Jesus' Resurrection is said not to be a "material >fact" and with no physical reality, yet the Bab transports himself from >the midst of a firing squad back to his cell! > > Therefore John, if you insist on denying the obvious intentions of very >concrete assertions presented by Baha'i leaders only because the >implications I point out in them reveal falsehood, then there is no >further need for us to belabor the issue. You wish not to be confused >with the facts. There is no way around the clear implications of Abdul >Baha's argument in SAQ against the Ascension and >literal/physical/personal Resurrection of Jesus. There is no way to deny >the materialistic basis of his argument or that it is, in fact, his own >argument. Yet I realize that to concede those implications would be >devastating to what you are into beyond the ability for immediate >acceptance. Thus you present the "hidden original context" argument >despite its impossible invalidity when the text is really looked at. If >someone calls "black" and you insist that they really mean "white", we >are indeed at an impasse. > > But the more crucial issue between you and I in this discussion is to >discover where you yourself really stand. You say that the Resurrection >was a "real" and "literal" event. Yet you say that you have made no >profession of belief concerning the literal, bodily Resurrection of >Jesus. ("...I have never said I believed in the bodily resurrection and >have not presented it as such. I might also add that I have never said >that I didn't believe in the bodily resurrection either....") What do >you mean by "real" John? The only way in which you would seem to have a >Baha'i argument for the "reality" of Jesus' Resurrection would be in the >"reality" of the symbolic reinterpretation of it (The Apostles renewed >faith after 3 days). Or perhaps you attribute the literal reality you >speak of as meaning that there was some "spiritual only" literal reality >in that "the eternal Christ" was resurrected again, to go on to >"possess" Muhammad and then again to "possess" Baha'u'llah with Jesus >being left out of the story in any way beyond the cross. NEITHER >possibility is compatible with what Scripture intends John and it is not >a trivial distinction. Scripture says that a man, Jesus, died and was >buried in a tomb. The tomb was found to be EMPTY of the BODY of that >person, which then appeared, literally and physically, and again alive, >to many witnesses who spoke, saw, touched, and ate with the SAME >INDIVIDUAL DISCRETE PERSON. My perspective (the Scriptural one) is >crystal clear. The PERSON AND BODY of Jesus were literally raised to >eternal life. Yet the significance of this is not just a "physical only" >argument at its root John. This focus on the physical for the SAKE of >the physical is only your own straw man argument. I have always argued >that what is critically relevant to our particular discussion is the >personal identity issue, which is REVEALED in the physical/literal >reality of Jesus' Resurrection. As before, I argue that the implications >of that singular, eternal and literal reality, specifically and >inextricably linked to the person of Jesus of Nazareth, preclude the >possibility of a "different" person coming as the Christ later (or >earlier for that matter) by way of some generic "possession" of a Christ >spirit common to many different persons. The literal physical >Resurrection of the personal body and personal identity of Jesus of >Nazareth, once and for ever, equates the singular identity of the person >of "the Christ" as <<>>the same person as Jesus Christ of >Nazareth, and thus God the Son. Your own outlook John (if you hold any >definitive one) is obscured in uncertainty at this point in the >discussion. > > You present an argument concerning all this, for example, that is >distinctly irrational. At first you concede that, > > >"Christ died on the cross. He lay dead two or three days in His tomb. >This is obviously a fact, material or otherwise." > > But then you simply ignore the EQUALLY rational need to follow that up >by considering the empty tomb, which is JUST AS MUCH "obviously a fact, >material or otherwise." You begin with a true realization of the >tangibly literal reality of the situation. And then, midstream, >spiritualize and symbolize everything in contradiction to your former >concession of the literal physical reality of the situation. For now you >say, > >"...In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is >also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not >material;Christ's resurrection is symbolical, but it is also a spiritual >and divine FACT." > > But it is ALSO an absolutely literal physical FACT. Abdul Baha is >simply wrong. The tomb was PHYSICALLY empty of a body that Scripture >says was risen able to eat, speak and converse with the Apostles and >disciples. Your attempt to create some spiritualized "literalness" to >the Resurrection (or define its "literal reality" as meaning the >symbolic reality Abdul Baha replaces it with) is distinctly wrong and >can only serve to try to rob Jesus of His SINGULAR identity as the >INCARNATE Christ. > I must say again that you have often seemed to want to portray me as >arguing that a strictly physical (carnal) aspect to the Resurrection is >the whole point I am trying to make and that I thus pointlessly argue >something that could have no spiritual significance even if it were >true. Who would care if Christ still had a carnal "body" or not? But >this is not the argument I have made. Since this straw man is a common >one, I feel the need to reemphasize to you again that the significance >in our discussion of Scripture's portrayal of Jesus Christ of Nazareth's >Resurrection as being a physical, literal, personal one, lies in the >associated singular implications it gives His Station as BEING the >Christ. Acceptance of the Scriptural intention DEFINES Jesus AS BEING >the "incarnate" Christ, not a "human soul" possessed by a different >"Christ" spirit person that also possesses other "manifestations". But >instead the single incarnation of the Christ ever to have happened in >the world of humanity, and, as such, the same singular person who will >return. > Also, to the extent that I do emphasize the PHYSICAL aspect of the >Resurrection, it is vital to recognize that it is only you John (and >other Baha'i apologists who depend upon the same line of argument) who >attempt to read into my intention the assumption that I am referring to >a carnal physicality. As before, I emphasize the distinction between >your assumed definition of a physical carnal body, and the very >different nature of a "glorified" physicality exemplified directly by >Jesus in the biblical post Resurrection appearances. I do not argue that >Jesus Ascended only into the phenomenal heavens with a "carnally" >physical body, and I never have. Such meaning has often been forced down >the throat of my position by others who create in the process a straw >man to knock down. > >You say John that, > "This (Abdul Baha's viewpoint in SAQ) means that in some sense, >Christ's resurrection is symbolical but not PURELY symbolical. Clearly >he is saying the resurrection happened, but no explanation is given here >for how this spiritual and divine fact manifested itself..." > But Scripture DOES elaborate at length concerning how Jesus >Resurrection literally and PHYSICALLY "manifested itself". Scripture's >portrayal of the Resurrection of Jesus is absolutely literal, and >physical. "I am not a ghost. For a ghost does not have flesh and bones >as you see I have." The significance of this does not lie in only some >base perception of carnal, material importance John. It is a definitive >indicator of the absolute literal identity of Jesus' person as being >that of the singular Incarnate Christ. The critical implications of the >literal Physical Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth lie in the personal >conclusions that must follow from it concerning the singular identity of >the person of "the Christ" in the world. > > >continued... (even if Michela doesn't read it!) ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:12 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: long, repeated, excessive posts Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35659CA6.336B@bellsouth.net>... >George insightfully says, >"I agree completely with your point of view. I guess that's the price of >freedom we all have to bare. Sometimes freedom is not all of what its >cracked up to be. >But that's America, I guess, complete freedom at any cost. The land of >"love it or leave it". >PostOn." > >It's insightful because the former suggestion is to censure what is >"unpopular", when all voices need to be heard that wish to .One can "not >read" what one doesn't care to without revealingly lashing out that it >shouldn't be there to read at all, even for those who DO wish to. > >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: fw Re: long, repeated, excessive posts Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <35659B5D.1456@bellsouth.net>... >Michela quips, > >"Guess what. When I see part 8 of 500, or one of 8, or see the same >thread posted over and over again, or see one person hogging the >threads,I don't read more than one (the first) in the thread. Sometimes >I don'teven read that many." > > >That's odd? I though this was all about sharing ideas and learning >something? If you don't care to read the posts that's your loss? > >Do you feel that they should be short, chatty, and trivial? > > >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:22 PM Subject: Re: Dale on Christ (Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts) Dale Grider wrote in message <35659917.3823@bellsouth.net>... >Frederick says, >"As a former Catholic, I agree.... Humility is a cardinal virtue...." > >The key word there Fred is "former" > >If you were still adhereing to the doctrinal essentials of SCripture, >you wouldn't think that a firm stand for the Gospel's original intention >was less than "humble" in its need to be aggressive in defense of the >truth. The fact is that over 40% of the NT is apologetic in its >presentation. And lets keep firmly in mind that those who have taken an >opposing viewpoint on this newsgroup to mine have been JUST AS "certain" >that I am misguided as I am here being accused by Fred. Are we ALL >lacking in "humility" then Fred? Dale, I stand corrected.... And respect your opinion, though I no longer believe the "doctrinal essentials of Scripture" can be found in Christianity.... > >The "passive aggressive tyranny trick" You must mean something by this but it's lost on me.... I find modern psychology quite nauseating having wasted many hours in several classes studying rats and so on.... I prefer the moral, religious, and literary categories of thought of Christianity or the Bahai Faith.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 1998 5:24 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <3565977D.5FF0@bellsouth.net>... >It's hard to know what Pjohnson means when he characterizes himself as >"Christian" and then criticizes my defense of such fundamentals as >Trinitarian doctrine and the full deity of Jesus as opposed to contrary >Baha'i doctrines? I submit that you calling yourself "Christian" and >stating that "Having read parts of Dale's website and John's recent >letter, I must confess that my sympathies are with the Baha'i side of >this particular argument" puts you in the position of having created >your own mutually contradictory profession. Whose "opinion" Mr Johnson? >Scripture's and virtually ALL of the Church Fathers for certain. If you >feel that my apologetic effort is "arrogantly" rooted in only my >personal opinion you should take stock of just what you think the >Christian Faith is? These issues are not just my opinion. > Rather than posting an ad hominum against me with no specific >discussion on any issue, perhaps you would care to share specifics on >some of the doctrinal issues we have discussed and let us all know just >exactly how it is that you would "side" with the Baha'i perspective on >them, and still remain "Christian"??? > >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:00 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bahai-faith: 16 subscribers There are currently 16 subscribers on bahai-faith: bintyaya@aol.com FG@hotmail.com harris632@aol.com house@usq.edu.au jeffery.decker@usa.net laaeterna@aol.com leonid@magnet.at lucien.dol@xtra.co.nz mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com pjohnson@vsla.edu shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au stephenb@polarnet.ca whitbrandt@mailcity.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:53 AM To: SRB Subject: Fw: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I submitted this message to you on the 18th. I have not yet seen it on srb nor have received a rejection notice. If you're going to censor it, please notify me to that effect.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:58 AM Subject: Re: Letter from the Universl House of Justice about internet Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"q0DKy.A.NAH.CsFZ1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >Dear Friends, > >The following extracts from letters from the Universal House of Justice >throw some light on the House's attitude to e-mail discussions and how >it expects us to behave in them. I don't see any proof at all that these "extracts" are actually from the Universal House of Justice.... It seems to me such messages should be given in full so that the entire context can be discerned as well as corroborating evidence of authorship.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 8:10 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" -----Original Message----- From: FG To: SRB Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:53 AM Subject: Fw: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >I submitted this message to you on the 18th. I have not yet seen >it on srb nor have received a rejection notice. > >If you're going to censor it, please notify me to that effect.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM >Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > >>Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>> >>>Say: True liberty consisteth.... >> >>"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >>sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >>of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >>the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >>conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >>the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >>man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >>Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >>King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >>fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." >> >>Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 8:40 AM Subject: Re: fw [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? >-----Original Message----- >From: Bud Polk >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 2:23 PM >Subject: [bahai-faith] What is the agenda? One might ask what his agenda is. I'm quite willing to discuss what my intentions are, and always have been. Here's a copy of the only other message dejanews.com shows "Bud Polk" has ever posted to Usenet: Subject: AlertFrom: cybrmage@dave-world.net (Bud Polk) Date: 1998/05/17Message-ID: <357eff89.5215886@news.dave-world.net> Newsgroups: alt.comedy.standup[More Headers] [Subscribe to alt.comedy.standup] > > > > > ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- > > Date > > > sent: Fri, 15 May 1998 11:34:05 -0500 (CDT) > > From: jdp23@netcom.com > > > > > > Send reply to: James Cornell > > > > > From: "Dr. S. Holmes" > > > >> > > > Subject: Argonne Scientists Warn of "MacroKiller" E-mail > > > > Virus > > > > > Organization: Argonne National Laboratory Encryption and > > > > > Security Division > > > > Argonne National Laboartory > > 9700 S. > > > > > Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439 > > > > Phone: (630) 252-2000. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.anl.gov/ > > mailto:info@anl.gov > > > > James Cornell, > > > Information Officer > > > > > > > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > > > May > > > 15, 1997 > > > > Argonne Scientists Warn of "MacroKiller" E-mail Virus > > > >> > > > > > "Argonne discovered a dangerous new E-mail computer virus on > > > Wednesday," > > > > > said Dr. Sidney Holmes, Argonne Chief of Encyption and Security. > > > > "The > > > > > virus is a unique new advance and is very dangerous. The lab has > > > > named > it 'MacroKiller.'" > > > > A common myth on the Internet was > > > > that a > > > computer could contract a virus > > when its user simply opened an > > > E-mail. But the only way to get a virus > > via E-mail was to receive > > > and activate an attachment such as a zip-file > > or program. That all > > > changed Wednesday with the appearance of > > MacroKiller, said Holmes. > > > > > > > > > > A "macro" is a series of commands initiated by a single keyboard > > > stroke > > or or other computer event. Until the advent of > > > MacroKiller, no virus or > > > > > macro could be activated by simply opening an E-mail message. But > > > > the > > > > > new virus takes advantage of the software architecture of the > > > > popular > E-mail programs Pegasus and Eudora and the E-mail elements > > > > of the > > > > > Netscape and Internet Explorer browsers. > > > > Now if a user of one > > > of the E-mail programs opens an infected message, a > > macro is > > > triggered. The macro or series of commands searches the user's > > > > > hard drive for the boot sector. That sector is erased or corrupted by > > > > > the virus. "When a victim turns on the computer, he gets a blue > > > screen. > > The computer just will not boot," said Holmes. > > > > > > > MacroKiller may be triggered by additional E-mail programs. None of > > > the > > commercial anti-virus scanners such as McAfee or Norton can > > > detect the > > virus or disinfect and repair a drive once it is > > > corrupted. > > > > "Until a solution is developed, do not open E-mail > > > from mail lists or > > from people you do not know," said Holmes. > > > > > > > END > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 8:47 AM To: Bjaff Subject: Re: why??? -----Original Message----- From: Bjaff To: delvallea@webtv.net Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, May 22, 1998 3:38 PM Subject: Re: why??? [clip] >If indeed there is unfair censorship on another list or Baha'i Forum, that is >not to be ignored or accepted as a standard to embrace. One would think most Bahais would think so, yet it appears otherwise.... >We must never oppose grumbling against injustice or the oppresions of >ignorance, for that is how tyranny begins. Tyranny seems fine to most Bahais as long as it "serves the faith." Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:05 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Tips for newbies cybrmage@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6kf1vg$f3k$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >When performing a search at , it is more informative >to use "power search" rather than a simple search. Fred, just click "power >search, " then use "Bud Polk" as your search string and for "group" put >"soc.religion.bahai." You will get about 50 hits. Yes, I used the power search.... Always do.... I searched though for the email address you used, which is different from the 50 hits you mention on soc.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:12 PM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com; talisman Subject: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Letter from the Universl House of Justice about internet >As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai >---------- >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Subject: Re: Letter from the Universl House of Justice about internet >Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:58:17 -0400 > >Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"q0DKy.A.NAH.CsFZ1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>Dear Friends, >> >>The following extracts from letters from the Universal House of Justice >>throw some light on the House's attitude to e-mail discussions and how >>it expects us to behave in them. > > >I don't see any proof at all that these "extracts" are actually from the >Universal House of Justice.... It seems to me such messages should >be given in full so that the entire context can be discerned as well as >corroborating evidence of authorship.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:12 PM Subject: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, May 25, 1998 6:29 PM Subject: Re: Letter from the Universl House of Justice about internet >As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai >---------- >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Subject: Re: Letter from the Universl House of Justice about internet >Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:58:17 -0400 > >Suzanne Gerstner wrote in message <"q0DKy.A.NAH.CsFZ1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>Dear Friends, >> >>The following extracts from letters from the Universal House of Justice >>throw some light on the House's attitude to e-mail discussions and how >>it expects us to behave in them. > > >I don't see any proof at all that these "extracts" are actually from the >Universal House of Justice.... It seems to me such messages should >be given in full so that the entire context can be discerned as well as >corroborating evidence of authorship.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 5:33 PM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, has sent me a threatening email, in addition to the one posted using my wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me that I have never posted online anywhere.... If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if you would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or unbalanced, please contact me immediately. Email addresses he has used are cybrmage@dave-world.net cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kfrsp$hno$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Frederick: > >This "threatening email" you speak of ought to be shared. Leave out >information of a personal nature of course. In this way we all may determine >whether and how it is threatening. -----Original Message----- From: Bud Polk To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:51 PM Subject: Would this be you? Glaysher, Frederick J, [address], [city], [state] [zip] Phone: [deleted] - right outside the [deleted] Metro area? Bud Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:13 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. And as others have attested, this tactic has become a common one at srb for censoring messages they don't want posted.... There's a message or statement to this effect on my web site by either K. Paul Johnson or Ron House, can't remember at the moment which. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. And as others have attested, this tactic has become a common one at srb for censoring messages they don't want posted.... There's a message or statement to this effect on my web site by either K. Paul Johnson or Ron House, can't remember at the moment which. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:23 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6kfcea$lag@news1.newsguy.com>... >This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, >has sent me a threatening email, in addition to the one posted using my >wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >that I have never posted online anywhere.... -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 10:14 PM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) > >Fred, I attached below a message from Bud Polk in the SRB archives, >indicating that >he has a mood disorder, but doesn't seem to be dangerous. He sounds fairly >stable >to me inthat message. I'm digging more. > >In fairness, you take a great deal as a threat or personal assault that >many other people >would just ignore, from what I've seen over the last two years of reading >your emails. >I am not saying that a substantive threat should be ignored, nor that I >would not assist in all >ways possible to deal with one -- a Baha'i couple just had their hous >firebombed a week >ago inFlint, and hate crimes are real -- but I'd like to see what exactly >his threat was, >in his own words, before jumping to the conclusion that it was, in fact, >substantive. > >Would you share the message? > >best regards, > >Wade Schuette > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:24 AM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email Bud Polk: I'll thank you not to attempt to contact me again by any means of communication. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm cybrmage@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6kfsh8$l77$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >In article <6kfcea$lag@news1.newsguy.com>, > "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> >> This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to > soc.religion.bahai, >> has sent me a threatening email, > >Fred, get a grip. I sent a message titled "Would this be you?" in the body of >the message was your name, your home address and your phone number - period, >nothing else - no threat. Anyone can obtain that publically available >information at which indexes all the white page >phone books in the U.S. Just wanted know if I had the right Fred in case I >want to snailmail you sometime. If I were malicious, I could have posted the >info publically. > >> in addition to the one posted using my >> wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >> that I have never posted online anywhere.... > >You posted your wife's name dozens of times when you posted to >soc.relgion.bahai as <"Frederick Glaysher" (@MOA.net)>. Any >one can check the srb archives and see for themselves. Fred also posted his >hometown and state as a footer in his srb messages in 1997. > >You posted your son's name to your new website under the message "2nd RESULT: >Talk.Religion.Bahai Feb 22, 1998." Again, anyone can go to the website and >check. > >> If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if >you >> would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or >> unbalanced, please contact me immediately. >> >> Email addresses he has used are >> >> cybrmage@dave-world.net >> >> cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Anyone who knows me - Baha'i or non-Baha'i knows that I am gentle as a lamb. >You can call a friendly email a "threat" but that doesn't make it so. > >When you use the Internet, you leave footprints. I do - everyone does. > >Respectfully, >Bud Polk >mailto:cybrmage@dave-world.net > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:56 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. Here's a recent example of srb pretending a message has "fallen through the cracks," been lost, etc., as a means of dispensing with it.... They conveniently manage to post many other messages on the same thread without losing them during the 8 days I waited for them to post mine.... From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 1:41 AM Fred: This one must have slipped through the cracks. I cannot quite see your point, quoting 4 words from Roger then answering with a quote from Abdu'l Baha, but maybe others will. I have posted it. I'd hate to be accused of censorship. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: "SRB" Subject: Fw: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:53:26 -0400 I submitted this message to you on the 18th. I have not yet seen it on srb nor have received a rejection notice. If you're going to censor it, please notify me to that effect.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > I ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:56 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. Here's a recent example of srb pretending a message has "fallen through the cracks," been lost, etc., as a means of dispensing with it.... They conveniently manage to post many other messages on the same thread without losing them during the 8 days I waited for them to post mine.... From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 1:41 AM Fred: This one must have slipped through the cracks. I cannot quite see your point, quoting 4 words from Roger then answering with a quote from Abdu'l Baha, but maybe others will. I have posted it. I'd hate to be accused of censorship. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: "SRB" Subject: Fw: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:53:26 -0400 I submitted this message to you on the 18th. I have not yet seen it on srb nor have received a rejection notice. If you're going to censor it, please notify me to that effect.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > I ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:27 AM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com; talisman Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. > > Here's another instance of srb censoring in a subtle way. I post this to srb on the 18th. They only posted after I emailed them as I explain in another current thread you might read here. What they finally actually posted to srb clips my signature file, everything below alt.religion.bahai. See the current version on srb for yourself. Please note that while doing that the "moderator" added back in the right arrow symbol, ">," concealing his changes from unsuspecting readers of srb.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:27 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. > > Here's another instance of srb censoring in a subtle way. I post this to srb on the 18th. They only posted after I emailed them as I explain in another current thread you might read here. What they finally actually posted to srb clips my signature file, everything below alt.religion.bahai. See the current version on srb for yourself. Please note that while doing that the "moderator" added back in the right arrow symbol, ">," concealing his changes from unsuspecting readers of srb.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:37 AM To: davecrnll@aol.com Subject: new list Just a note to sure you're aware of the new mailing list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:38 AM To: gsemler@pdi-corp.com Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new mailing list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:39 AM To: tommycarter@usa.net Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:40 AM To: josh6396@aol.com Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:41 AM To: jwalker@ozdocs.net.au Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:42 AM To: artist@coinet.com Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:42 AM To: farmid@clinicomp.com Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 8:43 AM To: mbkafes@bestweb.net Subject: new list Just a note to be sure you're aware of the new list. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:59 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: greetings I'll try to practice more restraint.... It's hard though.... Things are moving very fast.... The recent attacks on me have me quite worried about my safety and my family's.... It seems that's clearly the intention.... The level of harrassment from srb and others is just unbelieveable.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:40 AM Subject: greetings > >Dear Frederick: > >I like your new Web page quite a lot. Also I appreciate what you are doing >for free discourse in the community. I put the links in at my Web site. > >I just signed on to Talisman and thought I might try to do something with >it this summer. > >It seems to me more effective for you to send specific messages for the >talisman community to talisman than to copy them with everything from your >other list. Some people have signed off talisman recently apparently >because they perceive a flood of non-relevant messages. Also in the old >days we had a rule that two messages a day from any one poster was all that >was polite. > >Please believe me that I have every desire to have your uncensored voice >heard on the list. I am just giving some thought to the most effective way >to accomplish that. > > >best wishes Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 11:05 AM To: K. Paul Johnson Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email Thanks, Paul, I really appreciate it. I think you put it all quite well.... Some crazy person coming after me worries me a lot. There have been five of them like this now during the past year and a half.... Fred -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email >Dear Fred and Bud, > >The email in question was not threatening, but it was a form of >harassment IMO and there was a threat implied. That is "I know >where to come after you and your family if I want to harm you." >Whenever I've seen this kind of tactic used on the Net it has >been by defenders of authoritarian religious groups harassing >their critics. > >Bud, why else would you send Fred such a message? If you insist >that it was just to confirm his address, I'll decline to >believe that. His wife and kid have nothing to do with >your ability to write to him. > >PJ >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:14 AM To: Zutetflute@aol.com Subject: Re: literary criticism Gerald Graff's Literature Against Itself summarizes well the older schools of lit crit. See my review on my web site. For more recent trends, What's Happened to the Humanities? Editor Alvin Kernan. Also Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities. John M. Ellis. Good luck! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Zutetflute@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 4:35 PM Subject: literary criticism >Dear Fred > >I'm a high school English and French teacher. I've recently moved to Colorado >and find myself facing a number of tests to get my teaching credential here. >It's been years since I've read anything about the varying schools of literary >criticism and , to tell the truth, I thought many of them were created by >professors with too much time on their hands. I never really took much of it >seriously, especially since the focus of my major was ESL. Perhaps I should >have paid a bit more attention to this, since one area of the test I have to >take to get my credential in English is literary criticism (hubris?) The >reason I'm not pursuing an ESL credential is that here in the West it has >become so political that I've become disgusted with the whole process. > >Anyhow---Are there any books on literary criticism that you know of that >summarize the different schools of thought? > >Thank you. > >Andree >zutetflute@aol.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:23 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw & response: Re: Threatening Bahai email -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 11:46 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email >LOVE IS THE BONDING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE > >Dear Fred, Bud, and all >I heard you can now sue people who send threatening e-mail - maybe you can >all sue each other (legal unity). Salman Rushdie changes his residence >every three months so as not to be bumped off for what he said and wrote >(unfortunately that is the world we live in). Best wishes, Star* It seems to me the Bahai Faith is heading in this direction as well.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:23 AM Subject: fw & response: Re: Threatening Bahai email -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 11:46 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] Threatening Bahai email >LOVE IS THE BONDING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE > >Dear Fred, Bud, and all >I heard you can now sue people who send threatening e-mail - maybe you can >all sue each other (legal unity). Salman Rushdie changes his residence >every three months so as not to be bumped off for what he said and wrote >(unfortunately that is the world we live in). Best wishes, Star* It seems to me the Bahai Faith is heading in this direction as well.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:26 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kiuqp$7p$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Mr. Glaysher: > >In my posting ot two days ago, I requested that you display the >"threatening" post. I posted it yesterday but here it is again.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) >Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kfrsp$hno$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>Dear Frederick: >> >>This "threatening email" you speak of ought to be shared. Leave out >>information of a personal nature of course. In this way we all may >determine >>whether and how it is threatening. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bud Polk >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:51 PM >Subject: Would this be you? > > >Glaysher, Frederick J, [address], [city], [state] [zip] Phone: >[deleted] - right outside the [deleted] Metro area? > >Bud > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:26 AM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kiuqp$7p$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Mr. Glaysher: > >In my posting ot two days ago, I requested that you display the >"threatening" post. I posted it yesterday but here it is again.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) >Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kfrsp$hno$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>Dear Frederick: >> >>This "threatening email" you speak of ought to be shared. Leave out >>information of a personal nature of course. In this way we all may >determine >>whether and how it is threatening. > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bud Polk >To: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:51 PM >Subject: Would this be you? > > >Glaysher, Frederick J, [address], [city], [state] [zip] Phone: >[deleted] - right outside the [deleted] Metro area? > >Bud > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:41 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Threatening Bahai email -----Original Message----- From: zutetflute@aol.com Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 3:55 PM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email > > >And just WHY did you find it necessary to do such an in-depth search >to find out about Fred? WHY would you need to mail him ANY snail mail, >since you are unacquainted with him? WHY did you waste so much time >trying to find out details about his whereabouts? If I were Fred, my >reaction would have been much the same. >Andree > >In article <6kfsh8$l77$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, > cybrmage@my-dejanews.com wrote: >> >> In article <6kfcea$lag@news1.newsguy.com>, >> "Frederick Glaysher" wrote: >> > >> > This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to > soc.religion.bahai, >> > has sent me a threatening email, >> >> Fred, get a grip. I sent a message titled "Would this be you?" in the body of >> the message was your name, your home address and your phone number - period, >> nothing else - no threat. Anyone can obtain that publically available >> information at which indexes all the white page >> phone books in the U.S. Just wanted know if I had the right Fred in case I >> want to snailmail you sometime. If I were malicious, I could have posted the >> info publically. >> >> > in addition to the one posted using my >> > wife and son's names, demonstrating very personal information about me >> > that I have never posted online anywhere.... >> >> You posted your wife's name dozens of times when you posted to >> soc.relgion.bahai as <"Frederick Glaysher" (@MOA.net)>. Any >> one can check the srb archives and see for themselves. Fred also posted his >> hometown and state as a footer in his srb messages in 1997. >> >> You posted your son's name to your new website under the message "2nd RESULT: >> Talk.Religion.Bahai Feb 22, 1998." Again, anyone can go to the website and >> check. >> >> > If any Bahai or non-Bahai knows this individual I would appreciate it if >> you >> > would ask him to desist. If you believe he might be dangerous or >> > unbalanced, please contact me immediately. >> > >> > Email addresses he has used are >> > >> > cybrmage@dave-world.net >> > >> > cybrmage@mail.dave-world.net >> > >> > Frederick Glaysher >> > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Anyone who knows me - Baha'i or non-Baha'i knows that I am gentle as a lamb. >> You can call a friendly email a "threat" but that doesn't make it so. >> >> When you use the Internet, you leave footprints. I do - everyone does. >> >> Respectfully, >> Bud Polk >> mailto:cybrmage@dave-world.net >> >> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >> https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading >> > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Maryam Butson Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 7:14 PM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:48 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. > Here's another instance of srb censoring in a subtle way. I post this to srb on the 18th. They only posted after I emailed them as I explain in another current thread you might read here. What they finally actually posted to srb clips my signature file, everything below alt.religion.bahai. See the current version on srb for yourself. Please note that while doing that the "moderator" added back in the right arrow symbol, ">," concealing his changes from unsuspecting readers of srb.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. > > Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". > >Maryam > >>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. Here's a recent example of srb pretending a message has "fallen through the cracks," been lost, etc., as a means of dispensing with it.... They conveniently manage to post many other messages on the same thread without losing them during the 8 days I waited for them to post mine.... From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: Frederick Glaysher Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 1:41 AM Fred: This one must have slipped through the cracks. I cannot quite see your point, quoting 4 words from Roger then answering with a quote from Abdu'l Baha, but maybe others will. I have posted it. I'd hate to be accused of censorship. Bill Hyman co-moderator soc.religion.bahai ---------- From: "Frederick Glaysher" To: "SRB" Subject: Fw: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 07:53:26 -0400 I submitted this message to you on the 18th. I have not yet seen it on srb nor have received a rejection notice. If you're going to censor it, please notify me to that effect.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > I ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 1998 7:09 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Subtle but important correction.... One small quibble, as they say, regarding the link on your web site: Incorrect: The Baha'i Faith and Freedom of Conscience Archives of alt.religion.bahai Newsgroup (uncensored). Also available as The Bahai-Faith discussion list Should be: The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience Thanks. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: fw Re: John&Dale's ongoing discussion Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <356D99F8.1177@bellsouth.net>... >Dear John (and those in the newsgroup), > > Your letter was an angry one. Somehow you have shifted much of the >focus from issues and Scripture to one of personal accusation and >insult. This is fully true in the second half of the letter which I will >only respond to by way of private email to John. You begin John, by >assuming, > >"You use the term "cognitive dissonance" a couple of times in this >letter. This is just a fancy way of saying that I'm being intentionally >deceptive or a cloaked way of calling me a liar." > > That's certainly putting words in my mouth. But, rather than express >irrelevant personal frustration over it, I want to respond to you in a >way that addresses your complaints without buying in to your unfair >personal accusations, still in an attempt to interpret our very real >differences more objectively and less colored with personal insult. You >say, > >"Have you actually been reading the letters I've been sending you? It's >clear that you >haven't read them very thoroughly, because you don't have a clue where >our differences lie on this issue." > > I think that my lengthy responses, detailing point by point how and why >I feel you are incorrect in your Baha'i perspective, should have >certainly demonstrated that I have read the letters quite thoroughly. I >just don't agree with you. > >For instance you comment on our differences concerning Jesus Station, > >"If you've been following along Dale, Baha'is DO acknowledge the dual >nature of Jesus Christ. Both divine and human. Every time I describe the >Baha'i conception of Christ, you respond by saying "That's God, John." >So, the Baha'i description of Christ is high enough for you to make that >declaration, yet you feel we belittle Him somehow by saying that no >matter how great Christ is, the Father is greater." > > Now a comment like this makes me wonder if YOU have been reading my >letter!? Funny, we both feel the same way! For if I have made one point >over and over it is that, while Baha'is say that they recognize the >"divine" nature of Jesus Christ, they distinctly do not acknowledge >that 1) we speak of Jesus Christ of Nazareth personally, and not just a >generic "Christ spirit" that many can be possessed by, and 2) Your >conception of "divine" and the Scriptural concept of God the Son >incarnate are light years apart, Also, I have argued from the Scripture >that Jesus, being the incarnate Christ, must be God the Son, in person. >For "the Christ", as you yourself have revealed in your own comments >defining Him, is demonstrably "God", though different in "person" from >the Father. Much of your argumentation John has been to distinguish >between Jesus personally as a "human soul" from the "eternal Christ" who >you say has possessed not only Him, but many other "manifestations" >(different persons) down through the ages. I argue that Scripture shows >Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" to be the same absolute and singular >identity. (Again, my citation of the end of Revelation, "Amen, come >again Lord "<<>>") > >You tell me, > >"You don't understand what I mean by subordination. Using your >terminology, this means He is fully subordinate to the Father within the >Godhead and doesn't have anything to do with His dual nature. This >"subordination" was the position of the majority of Orthodox >Christianity up until the Council of Nicaea. Here are some >representative quotes from the primary sources that show this concept >quite clearly: > >Justin Martyr from his First Apology - ...that we reasonably worship >Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and >holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the >third... > >Tertullian, from Against Praxeas - Whatever, therefore, was the >substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name >of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as >second to the Father. > >Origen, from Contra Celsus - For we who say that the visible world is >under the government to Him who created all things, do thereby declare >that the Son is not mightier than the Father, but inferior to Him. And >this belief we ground on the saying of Jesus Himself, "The Father who >sent Me is greater than I." And none of us is so >insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God." > > But your quotes mostly only reveal that the early Church Fathers had >not fully formulated the concept of Trinitarian doctrine according to >all the subtle refinements that were to move it more in line with >Scripture's true intentions over time. It is odd that you cite the quote >you do from Justin Martyr in which he specifically groups the Father, >Son and Spirit, even though he seems to list them by priority, after >your formerly having said that, > >"The most important feature to note in the writings of the >Post-Apostolic Fathers is that >all the direct references to the relationship between the Father and the >Son show that >they taught a subordination of the Son to the Father and nowhere in the >writings we have from this period is God spoken of as triune. Nowhere >are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit spoken of as one being. And, of >course, nowhere does the term Trinity appear." > But it seems obvious that if we analyze Justin Martyr's quote, we >cannot come to your conclusion John that the church Fathers had no >concept of Trinitarian doctrine. For some understanding of it is >necessarily implicit in the quote you cite from Martyr and certainly the >seeds are there that would necessarily lead to the refinements found in >modern Trinitarian doctrine.Let's look at that quote again, > >"...that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of >the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the >prophetic Spirit in the third..." > > God only do we "worship" John. Therefore simple logic tells us that >Martyr, though he lists them in a prioritizing fashion, assumes Jesus to >be God, worthy of our "worship", and thus, by association, having >grouped the Spirit in the same set with the Father (God) and the Son >(God, to be "worshiped"), we must also assume his intention for that >station of being for the Spirit. The core essentials are already in >place in this quote to lead to a full Trinitarian development. In fact. >If Martyr felt that Jesus was worthy of "worship", and grouped the >"Spirit" in such company, it would be illogical for him to speak of an >utter subordination if, as you assume, he intended it to mean >subordination in "being". The Son and Father are "one" says Jesus. Thus >Justin cannot mean Jesus to be "...fully subordinate to the Father >within the Godhead" as you assume. Further thought on and development of >what Justin Martyr has already conceded here would, in any event, lead >to the logical conclusion that these three persons of the godhead, that >he already so clearly considers as God, cannot be seen to be subordinate >in being as you assume he means it. More likely the subordination he >speaks of is taken to mean a subordination in "person" not "being". This >would relieve him of having made two mutually contradictory assertions >in the quote you cite that can only clash if we assume your >interpretation for "subordination". He could logically be taken to >intend that, Jesus is God to be "worshiped" (which Justin Martyr is >CERTAINLY stating as fact), and thus, while subordinate in some fashion >in "person" as the incarnate "suffering servant", He is nevertheless >equal in "being" with the Father. >--- VS. the impossible statement, Jesus (God to be "worshiped"), is >subordinate in "being" to the Father (God), which can only follow from >your assumed interpretation of what he means by "subordinate" as meaning >"in being". "...fully subordinate to the Father within the Godhead" > This distinction leads to very different conclusions than your >assumption that Justin Martyr meant a total subordination in being John. >Logically, he couldn't. As before, I observe that he attributes Godhood >to Jesus. The rest logically follows. Jesus is to be worshiped. Jesus is >God. Jesus is a distinct person from the Father, as is the Spirit who >Justin includes in the set or group of persons being considered. God >must thus be multiple in "person". Jesus and the Father are yet "one". >God must be one in being as well as multiple in persons. > > But if you were right, and Justin's statement were left to stand with >the internal contradiction that Jesus is God, yet subordinate in being, >this would only tend to support your other professed argument that we >should just stick to the "source" of Scripture instead of bringing in >non canonic writings that are human efforts, important, but not >authoritative as is Scripture. I have not argued that the early Church >Fathers wrote infallibly. I have argued that the seeds of Trinitarian >thinking were already fully apparent in their beliefs. Thus, if you put >the quotes we both have discovered from those early Church Fathers >together and look at them in context, two things become apparent. 1) You >are correct in you earlier assertion that we should, in terms of the >nature of our discussion, largely just stick to the canon of Scripture >itself. Because 2) As I have argued all along, non canonical writings of >the Christian church fathers are not infallible and show a progression >of understanding driven by the facing of various heresies that forced >the Church to formalize just what Scripture was trying to really say. >Obviously it didn't start out fully formalized. Thus your assertion that >they believed Jesus to be "fully" subordinate, and that this is in some >way inconsistent with modern Trinitarian understanding, is not only >improbable (certainly in the quote from Justin Martyr), it is also >irrelevant. I have not investigated further the context of your quotes >for this very reason. Perhaps their belief was at times, and among some, >just as you have argued. IF you are correct, it is irrelevant. Of course >they did not have the fully developed outlook that would only come with >time and refinement. The seeds of such fully blown understanding >however, were clearly there as I have demonstrated in their absolute >belief that Jesus WAS God and their assumed grouping of the Spirit with >the Son and Father. The rest inevitably follows. > >You say, >"The point of the paper was that early Christian views don't match your >views. You might be able to see how they got here from there, but that's >irrelevant, because there's just too much speculation in between. When >you state that you know the intentions of the Apostles, I should be able >to go back to early Christianity and >find an exact representation of your views. But, when I investigate >early Christianity, I >find profound differences between your views and those of the early >Christians on many fundamental issues." > But I submit that you are thinking backwards John. Of course there >would be some differences in modern fully developed views of doctrine as >opposed to those of the early Church Fathers. My argument has been that >doctrine was refined over a few hundred years as it faced heretical >teachings. Thus, one would not expect the earliest expressions of >Christian doctrines to "match" my views precisely. I have demonstrated >that core fundamental seeds of belief DO show continuity with them. You >say, >"You might be able to see how they got here from there, but that's >irrelevant, because there's just too much speculation in between." > But it isn't irrelevant at all. It is exactly what you would expect to >find, with the imperfect "speculations" coming earlier in the process, >not later as doctrine was refined in the fire of heretical controversy. >It is a great assumption on your part John (and one that formed the >basis of your invalid historical argument), that you said, > > "When you state that you know the intentions of the Apostles, I should >be able to go back to early Christianity and find an exact >representation of your views." > > That is specifically NOT what you would expect to find. That is, >unless you want to argue that their writings are of the same >authoritative value as Scripture itself. The invalidity of your >assumption circles back to your own words John. Recall your wise >profession that, > >"We, as Baha'is are instructed to study other religions at their source. >With Christianity, that's the Bible. We are instructed to ignore any >dogma or doctrine associated with that religion and search for truth >directly from Scripture." > > This you distinctly are not doing when you try to use the earliest >Church Father's writings on the same basis of authority as Scripture and >expect that we should find an "exact representation" of fully developed >doctrinal understanding in their writings. If, however, as I have >argued, they were motivated to find the objective truths inherent in >Scripture, one would find the seeds of truth early on, and a development >of doctrine that grew ever closer to the genuine intentions of the NT >writers as doctrine was refined. This is what I have argued and what >the quotations we have found of them demonstrate. > >You say, > >"The Council of Nicaea granted the Son absolute equality in the Godhead >with the Father by the use of the un-biblical term homoousios, which >laid the groundwork for the Holy Trinity proper a few years later." > > But what difference if the "terminology" is "un-biblical", when the >concept behind it is biblical? A rose by any other name... > >You go on however to add, > > "There was no legitimate theological or scriptural reason for this step >to be taken." > >Yet Scripture says of Jesus, > > "I and the Father are one" > > "Before Abraham was, I AM" > > "If you have seen me you have seen the Father" > > "For by Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, >visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or >authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before >all things, and in Him all things hold together. ... For God was >pleased to have all His fullness dwell in Him.” > > "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. (Heb. 13:8)" > > Even if you disagree with the interpretation, there is evidently quite >a good bit of Scriptural justification for the refinement in thinking in >terms of Trinitarian doctrine. Certainly the suggestion in your history >that such developments were largely owing to political, social, >cultural, or even personal motives is a faulty assumption that ignores >these legitimate Scriptural indications of Jesus <<>>station. > >You say, > > "If the paper (John's "history") had a "Baha'i slant" that tried to >present early Christian views as if they were completely compatible with >the Baha'i viewpoint, why would it specifically say that none of these >views match the Baha'i view in the summary?" > > Because the "Baha'i slant" that I observed played out in a way directed >(even if unwittingly) to build up the believability of the legitimacy of >Baha'i doctrine, by systemically attempting to erroneously destroy the >integrity of the development of Christian doctrine. > > Once again you set up an insulting straw man John when you say, > >"Therefore, you have no right to claim superiority over anyone else when >it comes to interpretation of the Bible or to claim that you exclusively >know the intentions of the Apostles. Since your views don't match up >with those of early Christians, then that confirms that all you really >know is speculative Christian doctrine or Dogma from centuries after the >fact." > > You intimate once again that I arrogantly present my own "personal" >viewpoint and dare anyone to disagree with Dale Grider. You need to stop >doing that John. I represent a doctrinal stance that developed over time >and with great and prayerful consideration by generations of Christian >thinkers determined to find out what Scripture's true intentions were. >Between you and I , Christian and Baha'i, we debate fundamentals that >are distinctly NOT just my personal opinion. As just pointed out, it is >irrelevant as to whether modern Christian doctrine matches precisely the >beliefs of the earliest church Fathers. Developmentally they wouldn't >have had as refined an outlook. Ironically, you yourself next tell me >that, > > "Christian scholar's refer to the process I presented as systematic >theology. I believe the people involved were sincere and I believe in >most instances they made the best possible decisions based on the >information they had to work with, up until the Council of Niceae." > Your comment is ironic because if you believe that they were sincere, >then you would have to give credit that the "systematic" development of >Christian theology was one of lesser understanding progressing to >greater. Not the other way around. Your assumption that there was no >Scriptural basis for Church doctrine from Nicea onward is itself an >unbiblical error as shown by the few Scripture quotations that I cited >that certainly show that the continued development of Trinitarian >doctrine had a firm basis in Scripture, as well as the early Church >Father's thinking, even if you disagree with their conclusions. > >Of the process of doctrinal development over several hundred years you >say, > > "If an idea didn't meet all three of these criteria it was generally >discarded and branded a heresy. You want to attribute infallibility to >this process. The people involved in the process were just normal people >and were not infallible." > > I for one, have not said that any of the individuals involved in this >process were "infallible". But yes, I do believe that the overall >process, guided in large by the Holy Spirit over time, was and is. I >believe that through the Reformation it continued to be. I believe that >as long as false teachers, false teaching, and corruption characterize >human nature, it will be. Scripture is infallible but people certainly >are not. However, God's Spirit is alive and at work and the development >of church doctrine is not such that has been the responsibility of a >single person or a single generation. Thus, over time, I think God has >gleaned false doctrine from the core of Christian fundamentals in a way >that transcends the individuals and eras in which truth was defended. I >observe that it is very much alive today in facing present day heresies >such as JW, Mormonism, and Word-Faith theology. > >You say, >" Each and every Christian denomination believes it has an exclusive >hold on the >truth. Unfortunately, not everyone can be right. It's a fact that the >Holy Trinity is a >speculative doctrine based on three hundred plus years of best guesses. >It is scripturally defensible (barely), but it isn't inherently >scriptural as you say." > > Your grand assumption is blind to interdenominational ecumenism, >especially >with respect to the doctrinal fundamentals that define our discussion >and that Christian denominations, even Roman Catholic with Protestant, >agree on in common. We will have to agree to disagree as to whether >Trinitarian doctrine is "inherently Scriptural" or not. But remember >John, it is not your opinion (or that of Baha'i doctrine) vs Dale >Grider's opinion. Christian doctrine, in its 2,000 year developmental >search for Scripture's true meaning and intention, disagrees formally, >and across denominational lines, with your assertion that, > >"the Holy Trinity is a speculative doctrine based on three hundred plus >years of best guesses. It is scripturally defensible (barely), but it >isn't inherently scriptural as you say." > > You say, > > "In a previous paper, I showed you two verses from Scripture that >showed that the authority to judge could be given to the Apostles. The >Apostles are not in the Godhead. Therefore, the authority to judge can >be conferred outside the Godhead. The logic of your response seemed >intentionally befuddled. There is no ambiguity to this idea. If the >authority to judge can be conferred outside the Godhead, then it can not >be the basis for the Son being equal to or superior to the Father within >the Godhead and sets a clear precedence for other duties that are the >sole domain of God to be likewise conferred outside the Godhead." > > "Intentionally befuddled"??? And you John accused me earlier in your >letter of having a, "deceptive or a cloaked way" of calling you "a >liar"??? Your none too subtle comment here more than rudely makes me out >as less than honest in my response. I was sure that I clearly responded >that I had never argued the judgment issue in isolation as you do to try >to create invalidity in my overall argument . I argued it as one >indicator of many that, taken in context, inarguably portray the >Christian Jesus as distinctly different, and more than, the redefined >Baha'i one. If you missed that and don't still have the old letter you >refer to, I'll be glad to clip that section and send it to you again. > You say, > >"I have failed to address your contention that when Jesus said, "Before >Abraham was, I AM", he was definitively stating that He was God. In my >opinion, this is nothing more than English translators putting their own >theological spin on this verse. If you look at >German-language Bibles, for example, they don't have this verse >translated in this way. When noted Greek scholar Richmond Lattimore >translated from the original Greek, he translated it as, "I am from >before Abraham was born." > Yet, I don't see the distinction you are trying to make John? If Jesus >(the person) claims to have been alive before Abraham (and thus before >his own mortal incarnation), He is claiming to be God. Especially within >the context of other Scriptural indications about Him and from Him, this >must be the intention. (Heb. 13:8, Colossians 1:15, John 5:21, John >13:31, Matthew 22:41, etc etc...). I think it is only you who wish to >put a Baha'i theological "spin" on the verse. You do so in isogesis that >even still doesn't give your intended result. > > I can only close by stating that my intent is, and has been, sincere >though opposed to your religious outlook. I also will try to be polite, >yet insist on my right to be firm and frank. I will either assume your >sincerity or keep my opinions about it to myself, will ignore your >comments insulting my own sincerity, and hope that we can both grow in >our mutual understanding, even if we ultimately agree to disagree. > >With hope toward truth and goodwill, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 29, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: fw Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <356D9AAA.13D@bellsouth.net>... >"Darrick Evenson" > > > >Dear Darrick, > >I wanted to cite some significant comments from your recent email >response concerning your view of Jesus' Resurrection in an "ethereal" >body. You said, > > > > "According to 'Abdu'l-Baha, the physical body of Jesus "vanished". >This means it disappeared completely! God promised that His Son would >"not see corruption". His physical body did not slowly decay, but merely >vanished. The body that Jesus appeared in visions to his disciples >looked exactly like his physical body; because the ethereal body >resembles exactly the physical body, but the ethereal body is >non-physical. > ...Paul wrote that the spiritual body (which is NOT a spirit, but >contains one) is different from the natural body. Jesus was not raised >in a natural body and ascend into a material heaven, but He was raised >in a spiritual body and ascended into a spiritual heaven.... > > ...I suppose that the "Christian" doctrine that Jesus' physical body >was raised an changed is not too different. However, you must understand >that half of the early Christian Church Fathers believed that Jesus was >raised in a 'different' body (called an ethereal body) than the one He >died in. Both teachings can be found in the writings of the early Church >Fathers." > > Jesus' body simply "vanished"??? If Abdul Baha really promotes such a >contention, we would have to view it as being just as superstitiously >"against Science" as what he says in Some Answered questions about the >literal Ascension. Body's don't just "dissapear" Derrick.It's >illogical,irrational, and "against Science and reason". Therefore such >an idea must be against the very clear Baha'i teaching that says that, >"Whatever Science and the mind of man cannot fathom, religion ought not >to accept. Else is superstition." > However, if you adust your "ethereal" theory just a bit, you do in fact >get the orthodox Christian concept with different terminology. Jesus' >body didn't just "dissapear" Derrick. It was "transformed", "Changed in >the twinkling of an eye" as Scripture says of the Resurrection >transformation of a body. It WAS THE SAME BODY, only transformed into a >glorified state. > I feel that your argument is irrelevant once we realize this important >Scriptural distinction.Christian doctrine does not promote a strictly >"physical" Resurrection body for Jesus. I don't know why Baha'i >apologetic arguments with Christians always try to force the Christian >position into such a straw man stance? Christian doctrine promotes a >PERSONAL Resurrection of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the same PERSON who >was executed, died, and was buried. On the third day <<>> Jesus of >Nazareth, rose from the dead in the same body. Now if you wish to say >that it WAS NOT the "same" body due to its glorifying transformation you >are correct. Call it "ethereal" if you like. The point is, it wasn't >just a generic "Christ spirit" or "Etheral Christ" that was raised. It >was specifically and personally JESUS Christ who Scripture portrays as >being eternally raised. Thus, it is Jesus Christ of Nazareth who >ETERNALLY retains the identity of "The Christ". > I call Him a "glorified" Jesus. You call Him an "ethereal" Jesus. Once >we realize that it was JESUS who was personally and eternally raised in >the identity of "the Christ", we find that the Baha'i concept of >multiple "manifestations" becomes irrationally impossible. Other >different persons can't claim the singular identity eternally associated >specifically with the ONE human incarnation (Jesus).Even the Trinitarian >concept of God recognizes the simple logic that a "person" is only one, >discrete identity. Scripture portrays Jesus as THE identity of the >Christ person, raised eternally in that identity. The literal >Resurrection of JESUS OF NAZARETH, "glorified" or "ethereal", leads to >that inevitable conclusion.How can Baha'u'llah come as the Christ when >Jesus Christ of Nazareth (even the singular "person" of Jesus that >Baha'u'llah claims carries individual distinction)still retains that >identity, having been raised eternally with it? > Let us agree then. The risen Jesus of Nazareth was specifically and >personally raised in an etherally transformed body, glorified beyond >human comprehension or ability. And being raised personally as such, and >having shown Himself to many witnesses, He proved Himself to have been >the incarnate identity of the eternal Christ, the singularity of which >was also thus proven, His being raised the same discrete person "Jesus >Christ of Nazareth". As John says at the end of Revelation, not "Amen, >come again 'Christ'", but instead, "Amen, come again <<>>." > At the heart of it, the argument is not a physical one Derrick. It is >one of personal identity. > >In Jesus Christ, the risen Lord, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 6:48 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? Dale, please "cc" your message to bahai-faith@makelist.com when you post it to alt.religion.bahai. It accepts messages from non-subscribers. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? >In his reply to Derrick Evanson, Dale writes: >"Once we realize that it was JESUS that was personally and eternally raised in >the identity of the Christ, we find that the Baha'i concept of "multiple >manifestations" becomes irrationally impossible." >Ignoring the double negative, I thought I would throw in a comment about >convoluted thinking...which in this case, seems to be "I say it is so, and >once we realize that what I say is fact, we then can jump to other conclusions >based on my "facts." I have asked Dale a couple of times how he explains >this anthropomorphic vision of God the Eternal and His creation, and the >implied centrism (the earth and humanity are the center of the universe) of >Christian doctrine which surely now must seem irrational at best. He never >answers me, but continues on this tangent...Dale, where are you??? >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 6:48 AM Subject: fw Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? Dale, please "cc" your message to bahai-faith@makelist.com when you post it to alt.religion.bahai. It accepts messages from non-subscribers. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 9:47 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? >In his reply to Derrick Evanson, Dale writes: >"Once we realize that it was JESUS that was personally and eternally raised in >the identity of the Christ, we find that the Baha'i concept of "multiple >manifestations" becomes irrationally impossible." >Ignoring the double negative, I thought I would throw in a comment about >convoluted thinking...which in this case, seems to be "I say it is so, and >once we realize that what I say is fact, we then can jump to other conclusions >based on my "facts." I have asked Dale a couple of times how he explains >this anthropomorphic vision of God the Eternal and His creation, and the >implied centrism (the earth and humanity are the center of the universe) of >Christian doctrine which surely now must seem irrational at best. He never >answers me, but continues on this tangent...Dale, where are you??? >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 6:54 AM To: AErfani@aol.com Subject: Re: No sympathy here whatsoever Please post your opinions where others might read them too.... -----Original Message----- From: AErfani@aol.com To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Saturday, May 30, 1998 6:05 PM Subject: No sympathy here whatsoever >Frederick: > >This whole thing is getting tiresome. You have made your point to those >who have any sympathy left. I now get approximately 40% of my e-mail from >you, due to multiple posts of a cryptic nature that are cross posted to >any number of e-mail lists that I subscribe to. Why don't you deal with >these problems off-line and stop spamming the rest of us? > >Sincerely > > >DITTO HERE > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 7:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6kje41$ofi@news1.newsguy.com>... >Robert A. Little wrote in message <6kiuqp$7p$1@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>Mr. Glaysher: >> >>In my posting ot two days ago, I requested that you display the >>"threatening" post. Well, Mr. Little, is this exemplary of your idea of Bahai love? Do you support this kind of harassment of Bahais by other Bahais? Are you going to blame me, as Bahais have so often done? How would you feel Mr. Little to find such a message one morning in your mailbox? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bud Polk >>To: FG@hotmail.com >>Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 4:51 PM >>Subject: Would this be you? >> >> >>Glaysher, Frederick J, [address], [city], [state] [zip] Phone: >>[deleted] - right outside the [deleted] Metro area? >> >>Bud ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 7:18 AM To: Juan R. I. Cole Subject: Apostrophe Not to nitpick, but I intentionally don't use the apostrophe.... The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 31, 1998 8:26 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Antinomies One of William Butler Yeats' Frustrators came to me in the night and recited, "All the gains of man come from conflict with the opposite of his true being. Has not Baha'u'llah taught you this?" Upon waking, I was somewhat distrubed by this revelation and rummaged around my study for my copy of Yeats' A Vision, whereupon I also read "Dante suffering injustice and the loss of Beatrice, found divine justice and the heavenly Beatrice...." I fell upon my knees and recited the Tablet of Ahmad.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:21 AM To: shogieffn@netbridge.net Cc: Jonathan Grobe Subject: Re: New user (fwd) Sure. Thanks, Jonathan. I'd be glad to help in any way I can. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Grobe To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: shogieffn@netbridge.net Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 6:00 PM Subject: New user (fwd) > >[I am forwarding this to Fred Glaysher, who may be able to help you] > >Could you answer this query Fred? > >Other than having created alt.religion.bahai >I am not Bahai and have little knowledge on that subject. > >Jonathan Grobe. > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Sun, 31 May 98 13:48:42 PDT >From: shogieffn >To: grobe@netins.net >Subject: New user > >Dear Mr. Grobe. >We are a small Bahai group located in Lincoln City, Or. and have the desire >to link to other Bahai news-groups in the area. Would you please help us to >with your involvement, our members are struggling! Thanks. >Katheen Potter > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:26 AM Subject: fw Re: Threatening Bahai email -----Original Message----- From: John Whitbrandt To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 2:37 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Threatening email >I've been lurking here for awhile, and I must say that I do agree with Frederick. While there is no obvert threat in the letter I must question the purpose of sending such a letter. It seems to me that unless the party sending the letter is some long lost friend, that such behavior is totally inappropriate. > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:29 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Ethereal Resurrection??? -----Original Message----- From: Dale Grider Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Friday, May 29, 1998 10:07 PM Subject: Re: Ethereal Resurrection??? >Roger, > I don't think your response gives the identity issue I elaborated on >(and that your post is presuming to respond to) due consideration at >all. Identity does not exist as simply the giving of a name as a >label.("To dismiss the message of Baha'u'llah simply because He does not >call Himself Jesus") We are speaking of identifying discrete persons. >Your response distinctly evades the issue Roger.If Jesus is personally >raised eternally as "the Christ", it is irrational to suggest that some >"other" person can come with that personal identity. > Also the kinds of points I made from Scripture (such as the Words of >John at the end of Revelation which specify Jesus of Nazareth PERSONALLY >as the CHrist returned) have nothing to do with your suggestion that >they only exist as some antiquated "traditional interpretation" that >wiser folk know better than. I think the points were pretty definitve. >John says "Amen come again JESUS". What has that got to do with >"interpretation" Roger? > >In Christ, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 8:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Dale Grider Subject: Re: Dale on Christ (Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts) Dale Grider wrote in message <356F295C.56E7@bellsouth.net>... >Fread says, > >"The "passive aggressive tyranny trick" > >You must mean something by this but it's lost on me.... I find >modern psychology quite nauseating having wasted many >hours in several classes studying rats and so on.... I prefer the >moral, religious, and literary categories of thought of Christianity or >the Bahai Faith...." > >I too must say that my college psych classes were dreadful... and I >really had thought they would be fascinating! The "passive aggressive >tyranny trick" is a term coined by Dr. Frank Beckwith (persona non grata >with most Baha'is I've spoken with). He observed that almost always >somewhere along the line of dicussion Baha'i adherents would turn the >nature of the disagreement from doctrinal theological issues to a >personal one in which he was therever after simply accused of being >somewhat of a biggot with blinders on and guilty of a narrow minded >fundamentalist perspective "unable or unwilling" to see the >light.(Issues and reasoned arguments abandoned in that respect) The >tactic is distinctly ad hominem and convieniently forgets to realize >that the Baha'i is just as "guilty" of presumeing to tell the Christian >that their theology is "wrong" as the Christin is on the other side of >the discussion. I think you perceive quite well the tactics of many Bahais. It occurs to me they're basically the same tactics that have been used against me for over a year and a half now, accusing me of being a covenant breaker, rude, nasty, etc., while ignoring the issues of religious freedom of conscience and speech and their frequent lack in Bahai circles.... > > Owing to the nature of your present response, perhaps it is I who owe >you an apology. For you certainly aren't displaying the "Passive >aggressive tyranny trick" in this response. No apoloy needed. Incidentally, I find your Christian perspective interesting, honest, and consistent, though for me, not persuasive.... Nietzsche, in a sense, has played more of a central role in my life than Christ.... He understood the modern world much better than Christ. I hope that doesn't seem blasphemous to you. I don't intend it as so. I mention him because he represents so well the realities I believe many Christians shelter themselves from, and Bahais too.... > Baha'i theology considers the doctrinal essentials of the historic >Christian Faith to err in antiquated and somewhat superstitious >naivete'. I think you're right that there are passages in the Bahai writings that seem that way. Christianity based upon those core fundamentals must view >Baha'i religion as a cult. Probably true too. But then everything is a cult in such terms.... >We know that we disagree fundamentally. Yes, we do. But I do respect the sincerity of your Christian beliefs. >Still, I think much can be gained by airing our differences. I have >certianly gained much deeper understanding of why I believe what I do. And religious freedom of conscience and belief are absolutely essential for such conversation to take place.... Without an open society that permits and respects such discussion, we would have only propaganda and distortion and lies and increasing misunderstanding and ill will.... All the totalitarian and fascist regimes of this century come to mind, regimes that persecuted both Christianity and the Bahai Faith.... The irony is the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai often practice similar tactics in their misguided attempt to create "unity." There are times in this world when the recognition of differences is the best that can be hoped for.... > Many who I speak with wonder what value I could find in discussion >with Baha'is since I seem so certain of its falsehood. That attitude is >one that strives to "win" an argument. I am not trying to win an >argument. Through the discussion alone I always "win" a gretaer >understanding, actually by virtue of comparing our differences, and >searching the SCriptures for answers as did the Bereans. > >God bless, >Dale Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 8:09 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Bahai vegetarians - discussion -----Original Message----- From: Vegetarian Resource Center Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 2:27 PM Subject: Bahai vegetarians - discussion >We would like to contact practicing BAHAI vegetarians >and discuss how vegetarian living is part of their faith, >or something independently discovered. > >Please contact us at search@vegetarian.org > >We also sponsor a discussion list for Bahai vegetarians. > >It is OUR understanding that Bahai tecahes that >ultimately the world will be vegetarian, but that >there will be a time before that promise is realized. > >Thank you. - In respect > >-- >(c)1998 Maynard S. Clark - Vegetarian Resource Center >P. O. Box 38-1068, Cambridge, MA 02238-1068 >617-625-3790 (Voice) 617-357-2064 (Facsimile) > >Listowner: Geographical - Veg-Boston, Veg-FL, Veg-NE >Topical (organizing): Veg-BIZ, Veg-EDU, Veg-ORG >Special Groups: Veg-PARENT, Veg-REL, Veg-TEEN >https://www.tiac.net/users/vrc/index.htm >Vegetarian Pages - WWW site: https://www.veg.org/veg/ >Regional Vegetarian Network - https://waste.org/regveg/ >Publicist for Regional Vegetarian Project >Founding numerous additional topical and geographical lists. > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 8:39 AM Subject: fw Re: fw Re: Threatening Bahai email -----Original Message----- From: Eric D. Pierce To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: jrcole@umich.edu Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 6:03 PM Subject: Re: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) I seem to recall him posting on both SRB and talisman some time ago about his struggle dealing with mental health issues. EP On 26 May 98 at 17:33, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > From: "Frederick Glaysher" > To: "talisman" , > "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" > Subject: Threatening Bahai email (was Re: Tips for newbies) > Date sent: Tue, 26 May 1998 17:33:43 -0400 > This person Bud Polk, who points out he has posted to soc.religion.bahai, > has sent me a threatening email... ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 8:31 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Mr. Glaysher: > >This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross posting. >I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >charter as it has been posting CB material. Your web page address has >already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >not be be posting it again. > >All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >posted, but your advertising will not. > >Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your goal >was attained - so why are you complaining? > >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai > >---------- >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "SRB" ,"bahai-faith @ makelist.com" >,"talisman" >Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:27:25 -0400 > > >Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >>Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >>looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". >> >>Maryam >> >>>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. >> >> > >Here's another instance of srb censoring in a subtle way. I post this >to srb on the 18th. They only posted after I emailed them as I explain >in another current thread you might read here. What they finally >actually posted to srb clips my signature file, everything below >alt.religion.bahai. See the current version on srb for yourself. Please >note that while doing that the "moderator" added back in the >right arrow symbol, ">," concealing his changes from unsuspecting >readers of srb.... > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM >Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > >>Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>> >>>Say: True liberty consisteth.... >> >>"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >>sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >>of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >>the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >>conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >>the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >>man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >>Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >>King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >>fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." >> >>Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:08 AM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 8:31 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Mr. Glaysher: > >This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross posting. >I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >charter as it has been posting CB material. Your web page address has >already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >not be be posting it again. > >All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >posted, but your advertising will not. > >Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your goal >was attained - so why are you complaining? > >Bill Hyman >co-moderator >soc.religion.bahai > >---------- >From: "Frederick Glaysher" >To: "SRB" ,"bahai-faith @ makelist.com" >,"talisman" >Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Date: Wed, 27 May 1998 08:27:25 -0400 > > >Maryam Butson wrote in message <896225055.167484@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >>Hmmmm...I am generally *for* the SRB moderators, but even *I* can see this >>looks nothing LIKE a mere "personal note". >> >>Maryam >> >>>>As this appears to be a personal note I have not posted it to srb. >> >> > >Here's another instance of srb censoring in a subtle way. I post this >to srb on the 18th. They only posted after I emailed them as I explain >in another current thread you might read here. What they finally >actually posted to srb clips my signature file, everything below >alt.religion.bahai. See the current version on srb for yourself. Please >note that while doing that the "moderator" added back in the >right arrow symbol, ">," concealing his changes from unsuspecting >readers of srb.... > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Monday, May 18, 1998 6:45 AM >Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > >>Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>> >>>Say: True liberty consisteth.... >> >>"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >>sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >>of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >>the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >>conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >>the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >>man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >>Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >>King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >>fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." >> >>Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 6:21 AM Subject: fw Juan Cole: censorship FYI -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:57 AM Subject: censorship > >Frederick Glaysher's report of censorship practices at SRB mirrors my own >experience. The moderators at SRB report directly to a local spiritual >assembly and an Auxiliary Board Member about policy, and receive policy >directives from counselors occasionally. They fashioned a 'charter' a year >and a half ago that Usenet accepted, which forbids posting messages that >challenge the 'covenant.' Since most things one could reasonably say about >the Baha'i faith in the presence of conservative Baha'is would be branded >by them as challenging the covenant, this excludes quite a lot, and >accounts for the generally rather low level of discourse on SRB. To be >fair, occasionally SRB will let some critical thinking through briefly, and >then call a halt to the discussion before it gets to the nitty gritty. It >is not a completely censored operation. > >SRB is conceived of by the moderators and by the Baha'i institutions as a >tool for teaching the faith, not for serious discussion of issues in the >community or texts. Why they think that the often silly and illogical and >reactionary things that get said there would attract anyone is beyond me, >however. Most of my colleagues at the university who have looked in on SRB >have recoiled from the fundamentalist and triumphalist tone. (This >translates as, they found the Baha'is incredibly stuck up and narrow minded). > >What the Baha'is involved in SRB don't realize is that in a pluralist >democracy like the U.S., the attractive message for most people is >pluralism and liberty. That was the message `Abdu'l-Baha preached here, >which is obvious to anyone who bothers to read Promulgation of Universal >Peace. The antiliberal conservatives in control of the institutions of the >faith here are peddling, instead, control, conformity, and medieval notions >of morality. And that is why there are so few Baha'is in the U.S. The >Baha'is are not being true to the essence of their own religion. Instead, >they've started talking like fundamentalists. Only a few percent of >Americans characterize themselves as fundamentalists. That persuasion is >not a growth sector of the population, moreover, since it depends largely >on being poorly educated, whereas we are moving to a high-information >society. Pitching the Baha'i faith as a form of fundamentalism is in the >end a rather stupid strategy. > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 7:05 AM Subject: Re Antinomies -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, May 31, 1998 10:46 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Antinomies > Fred writes about true gain coming from conflict with the opposite of his >true being... Yeats spoke in universal terms.... That's the sense in which quoted him.... >Along this same line, wasn't it Sun Tsu who said: "A man is not one who has >mastered others, but who has mastered himself..." Where can such a man be found? You might take a lantern and search the streets.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:39 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Maryam Butson Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Tuesday, June 02, 1998 10:52 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:40 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: SRB censored 5-25-98 <> <> <> <> <> <> -----Original Message----- From: Robert A. Little Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 12:40 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Dear Maryam: I have an entirely different perspective on the matter: "Breathe not the sins of others so long as thou art thyself a sinner. Shouldst thou transgress this command, accursed wouldst thou be, and to this I bear witness." (Baha'u'llah: The Hidden Words, Arabic #27) "On no subject are the Baha'i teachings more emphatic than on the necessity to abstain from fault-finding and backbiting while being ever eager to discover and root out our own faults and overcome our own failings. "If we profess loyalty to Baha'u'llah, to our Beloved Master and our dear Guardian, then we must show our love by obedience to these explicit teachings. Deeds not words are what they demand, and no amount of fervour in the use of expressions of loyalty and adulation will compensate for failure to live in the spirit of the teachings. (from a letter written on behalf of the Guardian, May 12, 1925 and reprinted in Lights of Guidance, #306) ". . .When a difficulty is brought out into the daylight and freely discussed by a duly authorized and responsible group of people who are sincerely desirous of finding the best solution and are free from prejudice or personal motive, then there is a good chance of overcoming it, but discussion of the faults of others behind their backs, by unauthorized people who have no authority to take action in the matter, is surely one of the most fertile causes - probably THE most fertile cause - of disunity, and the importance of putting an end to this practice should be impressed on all Baha'is." (from a letter writton on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and reprinted in Lights of Guidance, #308) Maryam, if you simply look at all the postings on this group, dated June 2, 1998, you will see a pattern, the only possible result of which is disunity and suspicion. "As to backbiting, the House of Justice points out that learning not to concern oneself with the faults of others seems to be one of the most difficult lessons for people to master, and that failing is a fertile cause of disputes among Bah'ais as it is among men and women in general. In 'Star of the West', Volume 8 No. 10, on page 138, there is a record of a reply given by 'Abdu'l-Baha' in a private interview in Paris in 1913. He was asked 'How shall I overcome seeing the faults of others - recognizing the wrong in others?', and He replied: 'I will tell you. Whenever you recognize the fault of another, think of yourself! What are my imperfections? - and try to remove them. Do this whenever you are tried through the words or deeds of others. Thus you will grow, become more perfect. You will overcome self, you will not even have time to think of the faults of others. . .' "You are quite correct in your understanding of the importance of avoiding backbiting: such conduct strikes at the very unity of the Baha'i community. In a letter written to an individual on behalf of the Guardian it is stated: 'If we are better, if we show love, patience, and understanding of the weakness of others, if we seek to never criticize but rather encourage others will do likewise, and we can really help the Cause through our example and spiritual strength.'" (from a letter written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice, August 13, 1980, and reprinted in Lights of Guidance, #309) There are a series of letters reprinted in Lights of Guidance on this issue of backbiting, criticism and related issues. I encourage all to read or reread them. I am very tired of an endless stream of accusations, attacks, condemnations and the like, and would like to see a more constructive approach to resolving difficulties, rather than postings (whether original or forwarded) that create the very disunity and discord which Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Muhammad and Christ so strongly and unequivocally condemn. ". . .Thou hast written regarding aims. How blessed are these aims, especially the prevention of backbiting! I hope that you may become confirmed therein, bacause the worst human quality and the most great sin is backbiting; more especially when it emanates from the tongues of believers of God." "I hope that the believers of God will shun completely backbiting, each one praising the other cordially and believe that backbiting is the cause of divine wrath." ('Abd'l-Baha': Tablet to Dr. M.G. Skinner, August 12, 1913: Star of the West, Vol. IV, No. II, p. 192) ". . .Backbiting quencheth the light of the heart, and extinguisheth the life of the soul." (Baha'u'llah: The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 193) ". . .Vicious criticism is indeed a calamity. But its root is lack of faith in the system of Baha'u'llah, i.e., the Administrative Order - and lack of obedience to Him - for He has forbidden it! If the Baha'is would follow the Baha'i laws in voting, in electing, in serving and in abiding by Assembly decisions, all this waste of strength through criticising others could be diverted into cooperation and achieving the Plan. . ." (from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer December 18, 1949) ". . .an unwise act or statement by a Baha'i in one country could result in a grave setback for the Faith there or elsewhere - and even loss of the lives of fellow believers." (from a letter of the Universal House of Justice to an individual believer, December 8, 1967) On this note: This appeared two days ago. Join The Intellectual Discussions: What do you think an Arab is? Is there such a concept as a homogenous Arab? Speak your mind in the Art & Culture, Religion, Education, and Arab World Information Forums Surf Culture: Check out the Art & Culture, Religion, Education, and Arab World Information section in the ArabiaWeb Internet Directory Sunday, May 31, 1998: The Culture Channel Azhar: "Bahaism Is False Faith" CAIRO (AROL)-- The Iranian news agency, IRNA, reported yesterday that the Cairo-based al-Azhar, the sunni world's most prestigious educational institution, has declared that any Muslim adopting the faith of Bahaism would be considered an apostate. Al-Azhar's Islamic research academy called the belief of Bahaism "false" and said "it has nothing to do with Islam, or even with Judaism or Christianity." The academy cautioned Muslims against Bahaism and said any Muslim converting to Bahaism would be putting themselves outside the pale of Islam because Bahaism, the academy said, embraces non-Islamic beliefs, IRNA reported. The Egyptian weekly religious paper, 'Aqidati', reported in its latest issue that al-Azhar's reaction came after complaints from professors of the dental college of Cairo university that one of the teachers in the college was a follower of Bahai faith and was active in spreading the faith in Egypt. Al-Azhar warned of the dangers of the Bahai faith and called for severe action against those who were trying to revive it after a law was passed in Egypt in 1960 banning the activities of Bahais in the country. In 1980 Egyptian security officials arrested a group of Bahais led by painter Hassan Bekar on charges of professing the Bahai faith and proselytism in Egypt, IRNA reported. Most of them received jail sentences. The ulema of al-Azhar have issued a number of fatwas (religious decrees) warning Muslims against Bahaism and declaring it as a false faith. Bahaism was founded in the late 19th century by Mirza Hoseyn Ali Nuri, later known as Bahaullah, who was a follower of Mirza Ali Muhammad of shiraz, known as the Bab. Today the largest number of Bahais is in the United States. Previous related stories Bahai: A Messianic Religion. 12/18/1997 One of the regular contributors to this site was jailed, along with his family, for being Baha'is. They received life sentences which were communted after many years of imprisonment. That ruler still rules his country. I know of dozens of Baha'is who are related to martyrs. One Baha'i here in Los Angeles was working in Iran as an engineer for McDonald Douglas, and was jailed and sentenced to death after the collapse of the regime of the Shah. He was fortunate, and still lives. I was once summarily taken to the local offices of the DENI (Panama's version of the FBI, CIA and Mafia rolled into one package) and ordered to explain my presence and my activities. I was accused of drug dealing, but I had the foresight to bring with me some papers which demonstrated the Baha'i attitude towards drugs, and I was released. This issue is ought not to be taken lightly. I want this site to be a place where people may converse in an atmosphere of love. "When we see the condition the world is in today, we must surely forget these utterly insignificant internal disturbances, and rush, unitedly, to the rescue of humanity. . ." (excerpted from a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, February 16, 1951) With love, Robert A. Little Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 6:52 AM Subject: Re: Dale on Christ (Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts) Well, you're probably right, Dale, that there's a logical flaw here in my thinking since manifestations are supposed to know everything.... Perhaps my choice of words was less than felicitious.... No disrespect to Christ was intended. Strictly and more carefully speaking, HE did understand the spiritual needs and dimensions of the human soul better than Nietzsche, who nevertheless was the first great philosopher or thinker to state in unequivocal terms the modern rupture between Christianity and the social milieu.... (Nietzsche's not my hero, incidentally.) We differ, Dale, perhaps only in our response to Nietzsche's clarion call: you wish to return or restore the Christian past; I believe God has reveal a new future and dispensation for humankind.... Dale Grider wrote in message <3573F50E.23B6@bellsouth.net>... >Dear Fred, >Your most fascinating comment in reponse was the following, > "Nietzsche, in a sense, has played more of a central role in my life >than Christ.... He understood the modern world much better than >Christ. I hope that doesn't seem blasphemous to you. I don't >intend it as so. I mention him because he represents so well the >realities I believe many Christians shelter themselves from, and >Bahais too...." > >That seems an amazing statement, from either a Baha'i or Christian >perspective. I must confess that I only know of Nietzsche in relation to >his influence on Hitler and the Nazi phenomenon. This is not at all a >positive outgrowth or influence but that doesn't mean that distortion >and perversion of his concepts condemns his ideas. As you know, my >contention is that Baha'i theology does this with Scripture. Still, >as a person distinctly not on the level of perfect understanding of a >manifestation (as Jesus is considered to be in Baha'i belief), how could >you say that, "He understood the modern world much better than Christ."? > Obviously I believe that to be an imposibility. To me, that would be >like saying that God didn't understand the "modern world" as well as >Nietzsche! But even if one only felt that Jesus was a seasonal >"reflection" of God (that God's perfection shown through Him by way of >possesion by the "eternal Christ" who would later also come into the >world in Baha'u'llah) you still would have to be seen as being somewhat >"blasphemous" to suggest that a non manifestation would understand the >world and humanity better that a manifestation? > > >In Christ, >Dale Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: I wish this whole thing were petty, but, alas, it's not.... Hyman's message here reveals quite what the problems are with soc.religion.bahai and its "moderators." I'm not looking for fans, Maryam, and have nothing against you.... > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. The original message that had its signature file clipped was not crossposted.... > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > I agree fully with all of the below nor have I ever supported those who have posted covenant breaker material. Hyman and other such Bahais would deny those people termed covenant breakers of their civil rights to free speech despite Shoghi Effendi's emphatic statement that nothing should ever be done to deprive them of them. To blame me for what others post to alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com, neither of which I have ANY control over, is appalling injustice.... >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. The accusation that I'm paranoid is a ploy started by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other Bahais who have found demonizing and ad hominim attacks effective methods of discrediting anyone who does not think and say the things they believe are "true." > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. Blatant injustice.... > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. This is exactly it but okay with Mr. Hyman.... > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. More vague and unsubstantiated accusations and character attacks. It is an old honored principle of common law that the accused should have benefit of knowing who his accusers are and what they have to say.... SRB has used this tactic countless times during the last year and a half against me and others.... > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. Again, I am not paranoid, but experienced with the intrigue and deception that soc.religion.bahai routinely employs.... > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. Only the recognition of Abdu'l-Baha's respect for religious freedom of speech and thought by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other such Bahais, resulting in their voting YES for talk.religion.bahai this August, will ever put an end to this shameful and disgraceful episode in Bahai history.... > >Regards as always >Maryam > > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: I wish this whole thing were petty, but, alas, it's not.... Hyman's message here reveals quite what the problems are with soc.religion.bahai and its "moderators." I'm not looking for fans, Maryam, and have nothing against you.... > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. The original message that had its signature file clipped was not crossposted.... > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > I agree fully with all of the below nor have I ever supported those who have posted covenant breaker material. Hyman and other such Bahais would deny those people termed covenant breakers of their civil rights to free speech despite Shoghi Effendi's emphatic statement that nothing should ever be done to deprive them of them. To blame me for what others post to alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com, neither of which I have ANY control over, is appalling injustice.... >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. The accusation that I'm paranoid is a ploy started by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other Bahais who have found demonizing and ad hominim attacks effective methods of discrediting anyone who does not think and say the things they believe are "true." > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. Blatant injustice.... > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. This is exactly it but okay with Mr. Hyman.... > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. More vague and unsubstantiated accusations and character attacks. It is an old honored principle of common law that the accused should have benefit of knowing who his accusers are and what they have to say.... SRB has used this tactic countless times during the last year and a half against me and others.... > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. Again, I am not paranoid, but experienced with the intrigue and deception that soc.religion.bahai routinely employs.... > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. Only the recognition of Abdu'l-Baha's respect for religious freedom of speech and thought by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other such Bahais, resulting in their voting YES for talk.religion.bahai this August, will ever put an end to this shameful and disgraceful episode in Bahai history.... > >Regards as always >Maryam > > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:45 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l2jrh$qns$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... Dear Maryam: I have an entirely different perspective on the matter: [irrelevant quotations clipped] Maryam, if you simply look at all the postings on this group, dated June 2, 1998, you will see a pattern, the only possible result of which is disunity and suspicion. QUITE THE REVERSE, IN MY OPINION.... [ditto] There are a series of letters reprinted in Lights of Guidance on this issue of backbiting, criticism and related issues. I encourage all to read or reread them. I am very tired of an endless stream of accusations, attacks, condemnations and the like, and would like to see a more constructive approach to resolving difficulties, rather than postings (whether original or forwarded) that create the very disunity and discord which Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Muhammad and Christ so strongly and unequivocally condemn. I HAVE TO USE CAPS BECAUSE YOUR RICH TEXT WON'T PUT IN THE LITTLE ARROW SIGNS FOR SOME REASON TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE FROM YOURS. [DITTO] On this note: This appeared two days ago. DELETED: Azhar: "Bahaism Is False Faith" CAIRO (AROL)-- The Iranian news agency, IRNA, reported yesterday that the Cairo-based al-Azhar, the sunni world's most prestigious educational institution, has declared that any Muslim adopting the faith of Bahaism would be considered an apostate. SO WHAT'S NEW IN THE MIDDLE EAST? One of the regular contributors to this site was jailed, along with his family, for being Baha'is. They received life sentences which were communted after many years of imprisonment. That ruler still rules his country. I know of dozens of Baha'is who are related to martyrs. One Baha'i here in Los Angeles was working in Iran as an engineer for McDonald Douglas, and was jailed and sentenced to death after the collapse of the regime of the Shah. He was fortunate, and still lives. MY QUESTION: THEN HOW CAN SUCH BAHAIS HAVE THE GALL TO COME HERE TO THE USA AND DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND BELIEF? I was once summarily taken to the local offices of the DENI (Panama's version of the FBI, CIA and Mafia rolled into one package) and ordered to explain my presence and my activities. I was accused of drug dealing, but I had the foresight to bring with me some papers which demonstrated the Baha'i attitude towards drugs, and I was released. AND NOW YOU SUPPORT THE "MODERATORS" AT SRB BASICALLY MUGGING ME AND OTHER BAHAIS? This issue is ought not to be taken lightly. I want this site to be a place where people may converse in an atmosphere of love. MR. LITTLE, YOU'VE IGNORING THE REAL ISSUES, AS YOU HAVE INGORED MY POSTING THE THREATENING BAHAI EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM A BAHAI, MR BUD POLK, WHICH YOU TWICE ASKED ME TO POST, INCIDENTALLY. WHAT ABOUT THAT? IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF CREATING AN ATMOSPHERE OF LOVE? [ANOTHER SELFSERVING, IRRELEVANT QUOTATION DELETED] With love, Robert A. Little Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:45 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l2jrh$qns$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... Dear Maryam: I have an entirely different perspective on the matter: [irrelevant quotations clipped] Maryam, if you simply look at all the postings on this group, dated June 2, 1998, you will see a pattern, the only possible result of which is disunity and suspicion. QUITE THE REVERSE, IN MY OPINION.... [ditto] There are a series of letters reprinted in Lights of Guidance on this issue of backbiting, criticism and related issues. I encourage all to read or reread them. I am very tired of an endless stream of accusations, attacks, condemnations and the like, and would like to see a more constructive approach to resolving difficulties, rather than postings (whether original or forwarded) that create the very disunity and discord which Baha'u'llah, the Bab, Muhammad and Christ so strongly and unequivocally condemn. I HAVE TO USE CAPS BECAUSE YOUR RICH TEXT WON'T PUT IN THE LITTLE ARROW SIGNS FOR SOME REASON TO DISTINGUISH MY RESPONSE FROM YOURS. [DITTO] On this note: This appeared two days ago. DELETED: Azhar: "Bahaism Is False Faith" CAIRO (AROL)-- The Iranian news agency, IRNA, reported yesterday that the Cairo-based al-Azhar, the sunni world's most prestigious educational institution, has declared that any Muslim adopting the faith of Bahaism would be considered an apostate. SO WHAT'S NEW IN THE MIDDLE EAST? One of the regular contributors to this site was jailed, along with his family, for being Baha'is. They received life sentences which were communted after many years of imprisonment. That ruler still rules his country. I know of dozens of Baha'is who are related to martyrs. One Baha'i here in Los Angeles was working in Iran as an engineer for McDonald Douglas, and was jailed and sentenced to death after the collapse of the regime of the Shah. He was fortunate, and still lives. MY QUESTION: THEN HOW CAN SUCH BAHAIS HAVE THE GALL TO COME HERE TO THE USA AND DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND BELIEF? I was once summarily taken to the local offices of the DENI (Panama's version of the FBI, CIA and Mafia rolled into one package) and ordered to explain my presence and my activities. I was accused of drug dealing, but I had the foresight to bring with me some papers which demonstrated the Baha'i attitude towards drugs, and I was released. AND NOW YOU SUPPORT THE "MODERATORS" AT SRB BASICALLY MUGGING ME AND OTHER BAHAIS? This issue is ought not to be taken lightly. I want this site to be a place where people may converse in an atmosphere of love. MR. LITTLE, YOU'VE IGNORING THE REAL ISSUES, AS YOU HAVE INGORED MY POSTING THE THREATENING BAHAI EMAIL I RECEIVED FROM A BAHAI, MR BUD POLK, WHICH YOU TWICE ASKED ME TO POST, INCIDENTALLY. WHAT ABOUT THAT? IS THAT YOUR IDEA OF CREATING AN ATMOSPHERE OF LOVE? [ANOTHER SELFSERVING, IRRELEVANT QUOTATION DELETED] With love, Robert A. Little Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:50 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: maryam@netlink.com.au Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:10 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Maryam: > >Thanks for your interpretation. It's not mine. I have seen CB material on >Fred's channel and consider it against our charter to advertize CB pointers >to this Bahai forum. I would cease to be a moderator if I was forced to post >it. > >I was subscribed to Fred's forum for a while, when it was on coollist.com. I >asked him how he could prevent the posting of CB material. When he did not >give me a satisfactory answer, I unsubscribed. When Fred's submissions meet >the conditions of the charter they are posted to srb. I only clip the CB >pointers. I see that your list of other subscribers does not include any >addresses of anyone who does post pointers to CB material. I have noticed >that Fred's web-page also points to sites which post CB material. > >I looked up our Welcome Letter and do not see anything in it which would >prevent cross-posting. I will check it out further. I think it has something >to do with the technical aspects. This may have been only one of the reasons >Fred's submission was rejected. I do not necessarily include them all. I >will let you know what I find out. > >Regards, >Bill Hyman > >---------- >From: "Maryam Butson" >To: , , >Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:52:57 +1000 > >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:50 AM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: maryam@netlink.com.au Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:10 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Maryam: > >Thanks for your interpretation. It's not mine. I have seen CB material on >Fred's channel and consider it against our charter to advertize CB pointers >to this Bahai forum. I would cease to be a moderator if I was forced to post >it. > >I was subscribed to Fred's forum for a while, when it was on coollist.com. I >asked him how he could prevent the posting of CB material. When he did not >give me a satisfactory answer, I unsubscribed. When Fred's submissions meet >the conditions of the charter they are posted to srb. I only clip the CB >pointers. I see that your list of other subscribers does not include any >addresses of anyone who does post pointers to CB material. I have noticed >that Fred's web-page also points to sites which post CB material. > >I looked up our Welcome Letter and do not see anything in it which would >prevent cross-posting. I will check it out further. I think it has something >to do with the technical aspects. This may have been only one of the reasons >Fred's submission was rejected. I do not necessarily include them all. I >will let you know what I find out. > >Regards, >Bill Hyman > >---------- >From: "Maryam Butson" >To: , , >Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 00:52:57 +1000 > >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. > >Regards as always >Maryam > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 7:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Cc: talisman Subject: Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship FYI -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Watler Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 4:56 AM Subject: Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >: FYI > >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Juan Cole >: To: talisman@umich.edu >: Date: Wednesday, May 27, 1998 10:57 AM >: Subject: censorship > >[snip...] > >:>What the Baha'is involved in SRB don't realize is that in a pluralist >:>democracy like the U.S., the attractive message for most people is > >The INTERNET is world-wide, and is not intended for people in the United >States only. The Baha'i Faith is a World Religion, and was not meant to >appeal to any particular culture, race, class, etc... In any case, I >became a Baha'i in Canada, and it was the laws and principles which >attracted me, in addition to its universality of course. I needed >discipline in my life, among a ton of other things, and found it through >the Baha'i Faith. I would not agree with an approach that waters the Faith >down or to only show one side of it to appeal to a particular group of >people or win quick converts. > >[snip...] > >:>of morality. And that is why there are so few Baha'is in the U.S. The > >Really? Who supports the international fund most then if not the American >Baha'is? Who sends the most pioneers out in the world? Who is at the fore- >front in defending the Baha'is of Iran? etc... Yes, when I talk with >American Baha'is they seem rather impatient with the progress of the Faith >there, but I write it off as just a desire for instant gratification. > >By the way, I wonder if many people on this newsgroup are interested in >these discussions which are rather internal to the Baha'i community? Maybe >we are boring them Fred. > >Regards, >------------------------------------------------------------ >Miguel Watler >Cracow University of Technology >31-155 Cracow Poland >e-mail: pewatler@cyf-kr.edu.pl > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Re: Leaving Faith Matthew Cromer wrote in message <"QkZ3ID.A.kjG.FTmc1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >National "investigates" everyone who asks to withdraw from the faith? > >That is a very frightening thought folks. > >I hope that is not the case. > >Matthew Cromer Why is that a "frightening thought"? Can you or other Bahais who think so elaborate? Why do you hope that that is not the case? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 8:02 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re Leaving Faith (from srb) At least sent to soc.religion.bahai, if not posted.... Note with my full signature file, which is not different from those many Bahais post routinely to srb.... Matthew Cromer wrote in message <"QkZ3ID.A.kjG.FTmc1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >National "investigates" everyone who asks to withdraw from the faith? > >That is a very frightening thought folks. > >I hope that is not the case. > >Matthew Cromer Why is that a "frightening thought"? Can you or other Bahais who think so elaborate? Why do you hope that that is not the case? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 6:21 AM Subject: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship [Bahai] Fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com ; talisman Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:57 PM Subject: Re: Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship > >Dear Miguel: > >1) While it is true that both the internet and the Baha'i faith are global >in nature, it is also true that a) the vast majority of internet >connections are in free, educated and relatively well off societies such as >the U.S. and b) the vast majority of literate Baha'is in the world live in >the U.S. and Canada. It therefore makes at least a little sense for both >the Baha'i faith's administration and for SRB to adopt policies that don't >drive off hundreds or thousands of thinking people. > >2) I was not arguing against the legitimate laws of the Baha'i religion, >which I respect. I was arguing that when the administration gets to the >point where they threaten to have university professors declared covenant >breakers for running an Indiana University listserv and for making >non-fundamentalist postings, then the administration has become not only >intellectually bankrupt but also repressive and corrupt in a manner that >betrays the basic teachings of the religion's holy figures. And when you >betray what you are supposed to be standing for, you guarantee your own >stagnation or decline. > >Case in point. From May 1, 1997 till May 1, 1998, the *gross* increase in >the number of Baha'is in the U.S. was about 1,500. Subtract withdrawals >(formal and informal), deaths, and persons subjected to administrative >sanctions, and you probably are pretty close to stagnant. This stagnation >is a result of the Baha'i administration not standing for what the religion >stands for, of it being overly controlling and overly centralized and >exclusivist. > >You get invited into the Baha'i faith being assured it believes all >religions are one, all humankind is one, that there should be universal >peace, love, and harmony, that women and men are equal, and that there >should be unity of science and religion. > >And then you find out that Baha'is actually are busy shunning other people, >are quick to put anyone within the community into the category of 'covenant >breaker' who has a different outlook (as Doug Martin did to me beginning in >the early 1980s, backbiting me behind the scenes), demand conformity, >believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be >subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological >science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in general >often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, chasing people >out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. (How many Baha'is are there >in Poland, *really*?) > >It is not just a problem of people failing to live up to their scriptural >values, as with most religions. It is a problem of people being committed >to the diametric opposite of their scriptural values. A child could >formulate it. It is a problem of people being mean when they were >commanded to be nice. It is a problem of people being narrow and exclusive >when they were commanded to be universal and inclusive. And the meanest of >all are people like Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, who now control the >levers of power by virtue of having clawed their way on to the House. > >cheers Juan > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 6:44 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l5m9m$83b$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >Those "irrevelant quotations" which you clipped and which were revealed by >Baha'u'llah, 'Abdu'l-Baha', Shoghi Effendi and the Universal House of >Justice directly address the problems that criticism, backbiting and >personality assasinations cause, for the individuals on the receiving end, >the instigator, and the Baha'i community at large. ALL of those quotations are irrelevant because you're ignoring the topic of discussion, the censoring of my message by the srb moderator Hyman, a direct quotation from Abdu'l-Baha by the way.... > >I believe that repeated postings condemning the moderators of srb, and posts >and forwardings on the subject of "threatening email" demonstrate a profound >lack of understanding of the laws promulgated by Baha'u'llah which are >designed to promote and protect the unity of the human race. You're attempting to shift the subject from the threatening email to me, by a Bahai, whom you're apparently defending, and accusing me for standing up to it and other such shameful, disgraceful attacks of suppression by soc.religion.bahai. Blaming the victim in this context does work. Ron House remarked on this tactic by Bahais many months ago. I refer you and others to his message on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm > >I believe that you feel hurt, and I would like to see that hurt alleviated, >but I believe that the methods used here are not only not helping you to >achieve what you want, they are counterproductive. Here again you're going off on tangents. You asked TWICE Mr. Little for me to post a copy of Bud Polk's threatening email. I provided it days ago on alt.religion.bahai. Your silence does not speak well for you.... > >>MY QUESTION: THEN HOW CAN SUCH BAHAIS HAVE THE GALL TO >>COME HERE TO THE USA AND DEPRIVE OTHERS OF THEIR RIGHTS >>TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND BELIEF? > >How do you define freedom of conscience and belief? The way most normal people do and have throughout the world for the last couple of hundred years or so; the way Abdu'l-Baha does as quoted on the opening page to my Bahai web site. I refer you to it so that you might benefit from his definition, much superior to anything I could draft: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/bahai.htm > >I read (not an exact quote, sorry): "True freedom is absolute obediance to >everything which has descended from the Empyrean on High." You're quoting writings in order to justify your support for a Bahai who sank so low as to threaten me with apparent violence, as several others have done over the last year and half, does not flatter your sense of justice.... > >We ought to be concealers of the sins of others. "The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me...." > >We ought to love each other, and be blind to the imperfections of others. You're confusing love here with making excuses for srb moderators who FORGED my signature file to make it appear on srb as though it were the one I sent them!!!! You're confusing forebearance with repeated attacks by Bahais on people whose THINKING they disagree with and wish to suppress!!!! > >With respect, If you respected me and others who believe many Bahais like you and the srb moderators support and practice censorship at any cost, you would address our arguements, not ignore them or attempt to change the subject or attack on other grounds.... > >Robert A. Little > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6l3cvc$r7h@news1.newsguy.com>... >>Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l2jrh$qns$1@nnrp4.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>Dear Maryam: >> >>I have an entirely different perspective on the matter: >> >> >>[irrelevant quotations clipped] >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:06 AM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 I respond below.... -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: maryam@netlink.com.au Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:10 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Maryam: > >Thanks for your interpretation. It's not mine. I have seen CB material on >Fred's channel and consider it against our charter to advertize CB pointers >to this Bahai forum. I would cease to be a moderator if I was forced to post >it. "Fred's channel"? What channel would that be? I do not run or control alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com. I have no technical ability to prevent anyone from posting anything they wish to either one. In my opinion, you're attempting to insinuate that I am a covenant breaker because some of them do occasionally go through periods when they post messages to one or the other or both.... Further, you are referring here to my pointers in my signature file as "CB pointers." How dare you.... No one has appointed you to judge my soul.... > >I was subscribed to Fred's forum for a while, when it was on coollist.com. I >asked him how he could prevent the posting of CB material. When he did not >give me a satisfactory answer, I unsubscribed. When Fred's submissions meet >the conditions of the charter they are posted to srb. I only clip the CB >pointers. I see that your list of other subscribers does not include any >addresses of anyone who does post pointers to CB material. I have noticed >that Fred's web-page also points to sites which post CB material. You never stayed around to listen to anyone's opinion other than your own and then went off in huff flattering yourself that you have the sole truth on everything.... Again, "the CB pointers" is an insult. One you OWE me an apology for.... My web page points to sites that post CB material? That's news to me.... What are they? Please state here in public where others might hear because there is nothing on my page that does. On the Internet, ultimately, one could follow any number of links and get anywhere. The only thing I can think of that you could be referring to is Yahoo.com which gives all links known from any perspective on its search feature. If that's what you're referring to, every Bahai on the face of the earth had better stop using their computers.... > >I looked up our Welcome Letter and do not see anything in it which would >prevent cross-posting. I will check it out further. I think it has something >to do with the technical aspects. This may have been only one of the reasons >Fred's submission was rejected. I do not necessarily include them all. I >will let you know what I find out. Sounds more like you're trying to dream up a reason after the fact than that you had one other than unabashed censorship.... I consider you're changing my signature file and making it appear as though it were the original as blatant FORGERY and misrepresentation.... > >Regards, >Bill Hyman > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:06 AM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 I respond below.... -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: maryam@netlink.com.au Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 7:10 PM Subject: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 >Maryam: > >Thanks for your interpretation. It's not mine. I have seen CB material on >Fred's channel and consider it against our charter to advertize CB pointers >to this Bahai forum. I would cease to be a moderator if I was forced to post >it. "Fred's channel"? What channel would that be? I do not run or control alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com. I have no technical ability to prevent anyone from posting anything they wish to either one. In my opinion, you're attempting to insinuate that I am a covenant breaker because some of them do occasionally go through periods when they post messages to one or the other or both.... Further, you are referring here to my pointers in my signature file as "CB pointers." How dare you.... No one has appointed you to judge my soul.... > >I was subscribed to Fred's forum for a while, when it was on coollist.com. I >asked him how he could prevent the posting of CB material. When he did not >give me a satisfactory answer, I unsubscribed. When Fred's submissions meet >the conditions of the charter they are posted to srb. I only clip the CB >pointers. I see that your list of other subscribers does not include any >addresses of anyone who does post pointers to CB material. I have noticed >that Fred's web-page also points to sites which post CB material. You never stayed around to listen to anyone's opinion other than your own and then went off in huff flattering yourself that you have the sole truth on everything.... Again, "the CB pointers" is an insult. One you OWE me an apology for.... My web page points to sites that post CB material? That's news to me.... What are they? Please state here in public where others might hear because there is nothing on my page that does. On the Internet, ultimately, one could follow any number of links and get anywhere. The only thing I can think of that you could be referring to is Yahoo.com which gives all links known from any perspective on its search feature. If that's what you're referring to, every Bahai on the face of the earth had better stop using their computers.... > >I looked up our Welcome Letter and do not see anything in it which would >prevent cross-posting. I will check it out further. I think it has something >to do with the technical aspects. This may have been only one of the reasons >Fred's submission was rejected. I do not necessarily include them all. I >will let you know what I find out. Sounds more like you're trying to dream up a reason after the fact than that you had one other than unabashed censorship.... I consider you're changing my signature file and making it appear as though it were the original as blatant FORGERY and misrepresentation.... > >Regards, >Bill Hyman > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] Fw: Bahai vegetarians -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 9:59 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] Fw: Bahai vegetarians >I think what is constantly amazing to me is the manner in which Abdul'Baha >was able to so clealry "see" what the future would bring. His dissertations >on health are now being proven true. >Meat has long been known to be a cause of health problems: because of our long >intestinal tracts, better suited for digesting vegetarian foods, meat is not >processed as rapidly as it ought to be and putrefies in our bodies before it >is completely expelled, creating a number of problems due to the toxins this >releases within our systems. These toxins, combined with alcohol, created >powerful carcinogens; hence the incredibly high number of intestinal cancer >victims in our country. >Simple logic would thus dictate a vegetarian diet, but Abdul'Baha knew that it >would take an increased spiritual awareness of our relationship with animals >and the rest of the planet for us to become willing to separate ourselves from >the ways of the past... >On another note, I recently attended an interesting "deepening" where an >agronomist discussed the manner in which healthy plants have the exact same >mineral balance (calcium etc) as healthy human beings; this indicates that >plants grown in balanced soils would in fact probably bring the right mineral >etc balance to those who consumed them, verifying Abdul'Baha's statements. >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Re: Dale on Christ (Re: fw [bahai-faith] long, repeated, excessive posts) Well, you're probably right, Dale, that there's a logical flaw here in my thinking since manifestations are supposed to know everything.... Perhaps my choice of words was less than felicitious.... No disrespect to Christ was intended. Strictly and more carefully speaking, HE did understand the spiritual needs and dimensions of the human soul better than Nietzsche, who nevertheless was the first great philosopher or thinker to state in unequivocal terms the modern rupture between Christianity and the social milieu.... (Nietzsche's not my hero, incidentally.) We differ, Dale, perhaps only in our response to Nietzsche's clarion call: you wish to return or restore the Christian past; I believe God has reveal a new future and dispensation for humankind.... Dale Grider wrote in message <3573F50E.23B6@bellsouth.net>... >Dear Fred, >Your most fascinating comment in reponse was the following, > "Nietzsche, in a sense, has played more of a central role in my life >than Christ.... He understood the modern world much better than >Christ. I hope that doesn't seem blasphemous to you. I don't >intend it as so. I mention him because he represents so well the >realities I believe many Christians shelter themselves from, and >Bahais too...." > >That seems an amazing statement, from either a Baha'i or Christian >perspective. I must confess that I only know of Nietzsche in relation to >his influence on Hitler and the Nazi phenomenon. This is not at all a >positive outgrowth or influence but that doesn't mean that distortion >and perversion of his concepts condemns his ideas. As you know, my >contention is that Baha'i theology does this with Scripture. Still, >as a person distinctly not on the level of perfect understanding of a >manifestation (as Jesus is considered to be in Baha'i belief), how could >you say that, "He understood the modern world much better than Christ."? > Obviously I believe that to be an imposibility. To me, that would be >like saying that God didn't understand the "modern world" as well as >Nietzsche! But even if one only felt that Jesus was a seasonal >"reflection" of God (that God's perfection shown through Him by way of >possesion by the "eternal Christ" who would later also come into the >world in Baha'u'llah) you still would have to be seen as being somewhat >"blasphemous" to suggest that a non manifestation would understand the >world and humanity better that a manifestation? > > >In Christ, >Dale Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: Re SRB censored 5-25-98 Maryam Butson wrote in message <896799926.504194@kermit.netlink.com.au>... >Hmmm I re-read this in another area - and whilst this whole thing may seem >rather petty - I can see where Fred is coming from (and believe me, anyone >who searches the archives will see that Fred and I have occasionally had our >"moments" - I am not his greatest fan (sorry Fred)). The thing that >concerns me is this: I wish this whole thing were petty, but, alas, it's not.... Hyman's message here reveals quite what the problems are with soc.religion.bahai and its "moderators." I'm not looking for fans, Maryam, and have nothing against you.... > >>>Mr. Glaysher: >>> >>>This submission will not be posted to srb as we do not accept cross >>posting. The original message that had its signature file clipped was not crossposted.... > >AFAIK I've cross-posted before and gotten away with it, I was not aware this >was a "rule". (Must admit Fred, sometimes it's a bit much to see the same >post on every newsgroup I try to read), but notwithstanding that, this seems >rather flimsy as I have seen SRB posters cross-post, and I've done it myself >from time to time. > >I can understand rules against someone spamming every newsgroup under the >sun, but I don't think Fred has quite reached THAT level yet. > > >>>I considered advertising maillist.com to the srb readership against our >>>charter as it has been posting CB material. > I agree fully with all of the below nor have I ever supported those who have posted covenant breaker material. Hyman and other such Bahais would deny those people termed covenant breakers of their civil rights to free speech despite Shoghi Effendi's emphatic statement that nothing should ever be done to deprive them of them. To blame me for what others post to alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com, neither of which I have ANY control over, is appalling injustice.... >Firstly, there is nothing in Fred's sig. file that mentions CB material. If >THAT were a genuine excuse all Baha'is should be banned from the internet >because CB material exists on it! The fact that on an open list CB material >*can* be posted is hardly a valid reason for snipping an entire sig. file >that merely mentions the list - *not* the CB material. One might as well >ban any header that says AOL because some CBers have AOL accounts. > >Not to mention that this one is WAY out there for another reason. I've >never seen *other* SRB posters have their signature files snipped left right >and centre, not to mention that Fred's sig. file is hardly a huge >advertisement. Bill you are giving Fred fuel for his fire. I used to >think Fred was paranoid - now I am not so sure! Justice *is* the Best >Beloved of all things remember, regardless if it means you have to >occasionally allow Fred to post to SRB. The accusation that I'm paranoid is a ploy started by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other Bahais who have found demonizing and ad hominim attacks effective methods of discrediting anyone who does not think and say the things they believe are "true." > >You may not like what Fred has to say, but purposefully snipping his >sig.file to try and make it as difficult as possible for people to *hear* >what he has to say, comes across at best, petty ... at worst, confirmation >of his accusations. Blatant injustice.... > >Anyway here is Fred's file: > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >Now lets look at some other SRB poster's sig. files: > >Trisha Rainsford's: > >TeeCee >TeeCee Publishing >P. O. Box 9110 >Hamilton >New Zealand >Ph/Fax: 64-7-846-7484 >email: tricia@glonet.co.nz > >Graham Sorenson's (who happens to be a very good friend of mine - and I like >all his sig.files *G*) > >https://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/bahai.html -- https://www.bahai.org >https://www.baha.demon.co.uk -- https://www.onecountry.org >https://www.bcca.org/~glittle -- https://www.bcca.org/~cvoogt >"The Baha'is". A magazine format, Wonderful introduction to the Faith. >https://oneworld.wa.com/bahai/magazine/cover.html > >and Chris Manvell's > > Chris Manvell, Isle of Skye, Scotland. >Tel.:+44+(0)1471-822317-- >Newsgroup readers: Please remove SPAMGUARD from address before e-mailing. >Verily, Jesus said: "Come ye after Me, and I will make you to become >fishers of men." In this day, however, We say: "Come ye after Me, that >We may make you to become quickeners of mankind." [Baha'u'llah] >For more info goto: >, or > >All of whom as much advertising as Fred. This is exactly it but okay with Mr. Hyman.... > >>>Your web page address has >>>already been posted, and due to negative comments from srb readers I will >>>not be be posting it again. > >I'd be interested in seeing what these complaints are. I must admit I find >it difficult to believe that SRB readers *specifically* objected to Fred >posting his signature file because they didn't like his web page. More vague and unsubstantiated accusations and character attacks. It is an old honored principle of common law that the accused should have benefit of knowing who his accusers are and what they have to say.... SRB has used this tactic countless times during the last year and a half against me and others.... > > >>> >>>All your submissions, which meet the standards of our charter will be >>>posted, but your advertising will not. >>> >>>Was the real purpose of your submission to srb to advertise your e-mail >>>addresses, or to submit a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha? If the latter, your >>goal >>>was attained - so why are you complaining? >>> > >I am starting to understand *why* Fred is paranoid. Again, I am not paranoid, but experienced with the intrigue and deception that soc.religion.bahai routinely employs.... > >>>Bill Hyman >>>co-moderator >>>soc.religion.bahai > >For my two cents Bill, and I normally have a fairly high regard for SRB >moderation, the more you try and silence Fred, the more he will object, >struggle, and a larger issue will be made. If he really has nothing of >import to say - then air it and let it dissolve - this suppression only >feeds fuel to the fire and makes people like *me* sympathetic to what he has >to say about SRB. Only the recognition of Abdu'l-Baha's respect for religious freedom of speech and thought by soc.religion.bahai moderators and other such Bahais, resulting in their voting YES for talk.religion.bahai this August, will ever put an end to this shameful and disgraceful episode in Bahai history.... > >Regards as always >Maryam > > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 7:52 AM Subject: Re [bahai-faith] Re Leaving Faith (from srb) At least sent to soc.religion.bahai, if not posted.... Note with my full signature file, which is not different from those many Bahais post routinely to srb.... Matthew Cromer wrote in message <"QkZ3ID.A.kjG.FTmc1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >National "investigates" everyone who asks to withdraw from the faith? > >That is a very frightening thought folks. > >I hope that is not the case. > >Matthew Cromer Why is that a "frightening thought"? Can you or other Bahais who think so elaborate? Why do you hope that that is not the case? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: Forgery of my signature file I wish to bring to the attention of the readers' of soc.religion.bahai that one of the moderators has recently forged my signature file on the message quoted below. This was done without my permission and without my knowledge. I believe such an act violates the basic moral injunctions of the Bahai Faith dealing with honesty, free speech, and religious conscience, denying me the common courtesy afforded regularly to others on srb of signing one's messages with their own freely chosen signature file. The moderator in question, Bill Hyman, has claimed that my signature file "points" to covenant breaker sites, which I aver is not the case and give it as usual below and as it appeared in the message I first submitted to srb at the end of a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha's. I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:37 PM Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >> >>Say: True liberty consisteth.... > >"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." > >Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:11 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB Forgery of my signature file At least sent to soc.religion.bahai for posting.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: Forgery of my signature file >I wish to bring to the attention of the readers of soc.religion.bahai >that one of the moderators has recently forged my signature file >on the message quoted below. This was done without my >permission and without my knowledge. I believe such an act >violates the basic moral injunctions of the Bahai Faith dealing >with honesty, free speech, and religious conscience, denying >me the common courtesy afforded regularly to others on srb of >signing one's messages with their own freely chosen signature >file. The moderator in question, Bill Hyman, has claimed that >my signature file "points" to covenant breaker sites, which >I aver is not the case and give it as usual below and as >it appeared in the message I first submitted to srb at the end >of a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha's. > >I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a >practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on >this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:37 PM >Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > >>Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>> >>>Say: True liberty consisteth.... >> >>"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >>sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >>of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >>the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >>conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >>the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >>man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >>Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >>King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >>fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." >> >>Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:11 AM Subject: SRB Forgery of my signature file At least sent to soc.religion.bahai for posting.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM Subject: Forgery of my signature file >I wish to bring to the attention of the readers of soc.religion.bahai >that one of the moderators has recently forged my signature file >on the message quoted below. This was done without my >permission and without my knowledge. I believe such an act >violates the basic moral injunctions of the Bahai Faith dealing >with honesty, free speech, and religious conscience, denying >me the common courtesy afforded regularly to others on srb of >signing one's messages with their own freely chosen signature >file. The moderator in question, Bill Hyman, has claimed that >my signature file "points" to covenant breaker sites, which >I aver is not the case and give it as usual below and as >it appeared in the message I first submitted to srb at the end >of a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha's. > >I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a >practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on >this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >Date: Tuesday, May 26, 1998 11:37 PM >Subject: Re: New site: "The Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > >>Roger Borseth wrote in message <"DRnaXC.A.mAG.lOvX1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >>> >>> >>>Say: True liberty consisteth.... >> >>"These are effectual and sufficient proofs that the conscience of man is >>sacred and to be respected; and that liberty thereof produces widening >>of ideas, amendment of morals, improvement of conduct, disclosure of >>the secrets of the contingent world. Moreover, if interrogation of >>conscience, which is one of the private possessions of the heart and >>the soul, take place in this world, what further recompense remains for >>man in the court of divine justice at the day of general resurrection? >>Convictions and ideas are within the scope of the comprehension of the >>King of kings, not of kings; and soul and conscience are between the >>fingers of control of the Lord of hearts, not of [His] servants." >> >>Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveler's Narrative, 91. >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:44 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 John wrote in message <0D291123612F10BE.D2105B8548D5EB31.1CCF634D00712A16@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >Hi Frederick, > >I've been following along here and would like to comment. Bud Polk originally posted a >message questioning the agenda of your mailing list. You responded by doing a DejaNews >search for his past postings and then you posted one of his past posts in an apparent >attempt to embarress him. I posted the ONLY message a search of email address turned up: one on placing a virus in an email message to destroy someone's hard drive.... In the context of his unfriendly words on alt.religion.bahai, I believe it was the right thing to do to warn others that this person might have threatening motives. It turned out that I was right.... At least this is the way it appeared to me. He then sent you a >private e-mail showing you that he could play the same game as you by gathering private >information about you gathered from the same internet sources you used to find his old >post. It was not an old post. It's dated May 19th. I used dejanews.com, and he did not use "the same internet sources" that I used.... > I don't understand why you feel threatened by this. What's your last name John? Are you willing to come out in the open? A search of www.dejanews.com gives only the following messages from you: . 98/06/04 030 Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 alt.religion.bahai John 2. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 3. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 4. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 5. 98/06/04 030 Re: Christianity seems to ha alt.religion.christia John 6. 98/06/03 030 Re: A question for theists. alt.atheism John 7. 98/06/03 030 Christianity seems to have l alt.religion.christia John 8. 98/06/03 030 A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John It seems quite possible that this person is a Bahai trojan who's hiding his identity for obvious reasons.... > >Oh well, I hope you're not offended by my observations. I may misunderstand the situation. >Good luck to you in resolving this issue in a positive manner. > >Thanks, > >John > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:44 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 John wrote in message <0D291123612F10BE.D2105B8548D5EB31.1CCF634D00712A16@library-proxy.airnews.ne t>... >Hi Frederick, > >I've been following along here and would like to comment. Bud Polk originally posted a >message questioning the agenda of your mailing list. You responded by doing a DejaNews >search for his past postings and then you posted one of his past posts in an apparent >attempt to embarress him. I posted the ONLY message a search of email address turned up: one on placing a virus in an email message to destroy someone's hard drive.... In the context of his unfriendly words on alt.religion.bahai, I believe it was the right thing to do to warn others that this person might have threatening motives. It turned out that I was right.... At least this is the way it appeared to me. He then sent you a >private e-mail showing you that he could play the same game as you by gathering private >information about you gathered from the same internet sources you used to find his old >post. It was not an old post. It's dated May 19th. I used dejanews.com, and he did not use "the same internet sources" that I used.... > I don't understand why you feel threatened by this. What's your last name John? Are you willing to come out in the open? A search of www.dejanews.com gives only the following messages from you: . 98/06/04 030 Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 alt.religion.bahai John 2. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 3. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 4. 98/06/04 030 Re: A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John 5. 98/06/04 030 Re: Christianity seems to ha alt.religion.christia John 6. 98/06/03 030 Re: A question for theists. alt.atheism John 7. 98/06/03 030 Christianity seems to have l alt.religion.christia John 8. 98/06/03 030 A more accurate Trinity alt.religion.christia John It seems quite possible that this person is a Bahai trojan who's hiding his identity for obvious reasons.... > >Oh well, I hope you're not offended by my observations. I may misunderstand the situation. >Good luck to you in resolving this issue in a positive manner. > >Thanks, > >John > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:48 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Roger Reini wrote in message <357fb4c5.96767213@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:11:44 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>>I wish to bring to the attention of the readers of soc.religion.bahai >>>that one of the moderators has recently forged my signature file >>>on the message quoted below. This was done without my > >I would consider it a truncation rather than a forgery, since the part >of the signature that remains is accurate. It was placed in the public view without my knowledge and agreement. He changed it completely in a way that is not done with many, many Bahais that post to soc.religion.bahai and for putative reasons that make no sense whatsoever as has been pointed out by others. "Truncation" glosses over what was done.... > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:48 AM Subject: Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Roger Reini wrote in message <357fb4c5.96767213@news.newsguy.com>... >On Thu, 4 Jun 1998 08:11:44 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: > >>>I wish to bring to the attention of the readers of soc.religion.bahai >>>that one of the moderators has recently forged my signature file >>>on the message quoted below. This was done without my > >I would consider it a truncation rather than a forgery, since the part >of the signature that remains is accurate. It was placed in the public view without my knowledge and agreement. He changed it completely in a way that is not done with many, many Bahais that post to soc.religion.bahai and for putative reasons that make no sense whatsoever as has been pointed out by others. "Truncation" glosses over what was done.... > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:59 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l84lm$mr9$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >As you have pointed out, I see the issues differently than you. The issue is >obedience to God, not censorship or threatening email. There are no >conditions under which the laws concerning backbiting and criticism can be >broken. First of all, I suppose, you're accusing me of backbiting and criticism. I'm not going off on tangents so that you can change the subject from censorship at soc.religion.bahai.... Where are the laws that support threatening and intimidating other people and Bahais? What are the Bahai laws that support forgery, misrepresentation, and fraud? > >You have raised the name of 'Abdu'l-Baha', so please try to imagine His >response to the situations you have found yourself in. How would the Master >have bahaved? Abdu'l-Baha? How can you even bring up his name when Bill Hyman forged my signature file under His very words!!! And you defend it. > >Frederick, I choose not to respond publicly to the other issues you raised. >If you wish, I will continue this in private, and discuss each point. If >not, I request that you show forebearance. Please. Your forebearance is false.... If you can't respond honestly in public where others can judge for themselves, I have no wish to communicate with you because you're obviously insincere.... evident in your request for Bud Polk's threatening email and now disgraceful justification of it.... > >With love, A false word from your keyboard, as from so many Bahais.... > >Robert A. Little > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6l5to6$fu9@news3.newsguy.com>... >>Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l5m9m$83b$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>You're attempting to shift the subject from the threatening email >>to me, by a Bahai, whom you're apparently defending, and >>accusing me for standing up to it and other such shameful, >>disgraceful attacks of suppression by soc.religion.bahai. Blaming >>the victim in this context does work. Ron House remarked on this >>tactic by Bahais many months ago. I refer you and others to his >>message on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm > > >(rest deleted) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 6:59 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l84lm$mr9$1@nnrp1.snfc21.pbi.net>... >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >As you have pointed out, I see the issues differently than you. The issue is >obedience to God, not censorship or threatening email. There are no >conditions under which the laws concerning backbiting and criticism can be >broken. First of all, I suppose, you're accusing me of backbiting and criticism. I'm not going off on tangents so that you can change the subject from censorship at soc.religion.bahai.... Where are the laws that support threatening and intimidating other people and Bahais? What are the Bahai laws that support forgery, misrepresentation, and fraud? > >You have raised the name of 'Abdu'l-Baha', so please try to imagine His >response to the situations you have found yourself in. How would the Master >have bahaved? Abdu'l-Baha? How can you even bring up his name when Bill Hyman forged my signature file under His very words!!! And you defend it. > >Frederick, I choose not to respond publicly to the other issues you raised. >If you wish, I will continue this in private, and discuss each point. If >not, I request that you show forebearance. Please. Your forebearance is false.... If you can't respond honestly in public where others can judge for themselves, I have no wish to communicate with you because you're obviously insincere.... evident in your request for Bud Polk's threatening email and now disgraceful justification of it.... > >With love, A false word from your keyboard, as from so many Bahais.... > >Robert A. Little > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6l5to6$fu9@news3.newsguy.com>... >>Robert A. Little wrote in message <6l5m9m$83b$1@nnrp2.snfc21.pbi.net>... >>You're attempting to shift the subject from the threatening email >>to me, by a Bahai, whom you're apparently defending, and >>accusing me for standing up to it and other such shameful, >>disgraceful attacks of suppression by soc.religion.bahai. Blaming >>the victim in this context does work. Ron House remarked on this >>tactic by Bahais many months ago. I refer you and others to his >>message on my web site: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/House2.htm > > >(rest deleted) > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:02 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 M_Iman@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6l6cm9$9og$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Robert and Fred, > >*Puzzled* did I miss a post somewhere here? I am reading this off >alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc so I am not sure which email Robert >you are referring to? > >Marym > > > "Robert A. Little" wrote: >> They're passages from the writings he quoted in an attempt to change the subject from Hyman's forging my sig file to backbiting and criticism, from Bud Polk's threatening me, to it being all my fault.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 M_Iman@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6l6cm9$9og$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >Dear Robert and Fred, > >*Puzzled* did I miss a post somewhere here? I am reading this off >alt.religion.bahai and talk.religion.misc so I am not sure which email Robert >you are referring to? > >Marym > > > "Robert A. Little" wrote: >> They're passages from the writings he quoted in an attempt to change the subject from Hyman's forging my sig file to backbiting and criticism, from Bud Polk's threatening me, to it being all my fault.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:08 AM To: rlittle33@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6l6ien$iuk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >However, when I read postings by people who know and have accepted >Baha'u'llah, and which spread disunity and negativity, it causes me pain and >anguish. What causes me pain and anguish are the lies, distortions, half truths, justifications, deceit, treachery, betrayal, hypocrisy, fraud, forgery, collusion, calumny, censorship, and gangland tactics of Bahais who imagine they're serving Baha'u'llah.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:08 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6l6ien$iuk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >However, when I read postings by people who know and have accepted >Baha'u'llah, and which spread disunity and negativity, it causes me pain and >anguish. What causes me pain and anguish are the lies, distortions, half truths, justifications, deceit, treachery, betrayal, hypocrisy, fraud, forgery, collusion, calumny, censorship, and gangland tactics of Bahais who imagine they're serving Baha'u'llah.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:08 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: SRB censored 5-25-98 -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:08 AM Subject: Re: SRB censored 5-25-98 >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message ><6l6ien$iuk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... >> >>However, when I read postings by people who know and have accepted >>Baha'u'llah, and which spread disunity and negativity, it causes me pain >and >>anguish. > > >What causes me pain and anguish are the lies, distortions, half truths, >justifications, deceit, treachery, betrayal, hypocrisy, fraud, forgery, >collusion, calumny, censorship, and gangland tactics of Bahais who imagine >they're serving Baha'u'llah.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 Roger Reini wrote in message <3580c9f3.96882623@news.newsguy.com>... >My $0.02 worth... > >Since I've never subscribed to the mailing list in either incarnation, >I cannot say whether or not CB material was ever posted there. >However, I can say that the posts to those lists which were copied by >Fred to ARB never had any outright CB material, IMHO. "Outright"? What do you mean by that? Otherwise, I thank you for your observations here.... Honest words are rare these days among Bahais.... > >I will grant that some of the relayed posts contained material that >seemed to question or challenge the Covenant, but I did not know the >original posters to be confirmed CB's. > >As for Fred's Web site containing pointers to CB material, I would >disagree. There are links to sites run by individuals whom I might >call disgruntled or disaffected former believers, but that doesn't >make them CB's. > >This issue is beginning to get overheated, IMHO. Let's cool off and >give it a rest. In fact, I won't have much choice; my Net access is >going to be very sporadic in the next month or so. "Give it a rest" does not address the forgery that Bill Hyman committed when he clipped my signature file and posted it so soc.religion.bahai as though it were mine without my knowledge or permission. It doesn't address the fact that a BAHAI, Bud Polk, sent a threatening message calculated to intimidate and frighten me into apparent silence and fear.... Both of these actions are being justified by other Bahais such as Robert Little, who made so much about my not initially posting the threat to alt.religion.bahai and since I have now ignores it and glosses it over quoting writings to cast me in a negative light.... > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ If you're going to be an honest human being and Bahai, you can't have it both ways.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: Re: FW: SRB censored 5-25-98 Roger Reini wrote in message <3580c9f3.96882623@news.newsguy.com>... >My $0.02 worth... > >Since I've never subscribed to the mailing list in either incarnation, >I cannot say whether or not CB material was ever posted there. >However, I can say that the posts to those lists which were copied by >Fred to ARB never had any outright CB material, IMHO. "Outright"? What do you mean by that? Otherwise, I thank you for your observations here.... Honest words are rare these days among Bahais.... > >I will grant that some of the relayed posts contained material that >seemed to question or challenge the Covenant, but I did not know the >original posters to be confirmed CB's. > >As for Fred's Web site containing pointers to CB material, I would >disagree. There are links to sites run by individuals whom I might >call disgruntled or disaffected former believers, but that doesn't >make them CB's. > >This issue is beginning to get overheated, IMHO. Let's cool off and >give it a rest. In fact, I won't have much choice; my Net access is >going to be very sporadic in the next month or so. "Give it a rest" does not address the forgery that Bill Hyman committed when he clipped my signature file and posted it so soc.religion.bahai as though it were mine without my knowledge or permission. It doesn't address the fact that a BAHAI, Bud Polk, sent a threatening message calculated to intimidate and frighten me into apparent silence and fear.... Both of these actions are being justified by other Bahais such as Robert Little, who made so much about my not initially posting the threat to alt.religion.bahai and since I have now ignores it and glosses it over quoting writings to cast me in a negative light.... > > >Roger (rreini@wwnet.net) >https://fp-www.wwnet.net/~rreini/ If you're going to be an honest human being and Bahai, you can't have it both ways.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw & reponse Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Post anything one wants? We're talking about the forgery of my signature file under the very words of Abdu'l-Baha that support and praise freedom of conscience and belief.... Do you see no irony in that? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 5:00 PM Subject: Censorship vs Free speech >IMHO: >I have seen a lot on the net (and here) about censorship and free speech. I >have also had some personal dealings with censorship in another newsgroup. I >question if any freedoms are in question here. I see no reason why everyone >should be allowed to print anything they want, anywhere they want. There is >enough of a subject choice that a person should be able to find a newsgroup >sympathetic with their beliefs that would allow them to freely vent. If I am >a guest in a church of another faith, I dont bring a picnic lunch to the >service and eat it during the sermon. And if I have anything to say about >what went on or what was said I'll ask the proper person at the proper time >and not stand up in the middle of the service and yell my disapproval. >Meetings of people in the flesh have rules and codes that have to be met. I >see no difference with online meetings. Try to get a news paper to print >some of the stuff that gets printed in here. There are rules that need to >be followed here also. And if their are some who dont know how to follow >them, they need to learn. And if some dont want to abide by them, let them >go somewhere else. There are plenty of other news groups from which to >choose. >Post On. >George > > ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 7:30 AM Subject: fw & reponse Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Post anything one wants? We're talking about the forgery of my signature file under the very words of Abdu'l-Baha that support and praise freedom of conscience and belief.... Do you see no irony in that? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,soc.religion.bahai Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 5:00 PM Subject: Censorship vs Free speech >IMHO: >I have seen a lot on the net (and here) about censorship and free speech. I >have also had some personal dealings with censorship in another newsgroup. I >question if any freedoms are in question here. I see no reason why everyone >should be allowed to print anything they want, anywhere they want. There is >enough of a subject choice that a person should be able to find a newsgroup >sympathetic with their beliefs that would allow them to freely vent. If I am >a guest in a church of another faith, I dont bring a picnic lunch to the >service and eat it during the sermon. And if I have anything to say about >what went on or what was said I'll ask the proper person at the proper time >and not stand up in the middle of the service and yell my disapproval. >Meetings of people in the flesh have rules and codes that have to be met. I >see no difference with online meetings. Try to get a news paper to print >some of the stuff that gets printed in here. There are rules that need to >be followed here also. And if their are some who dont know how to follow >them, they need to learn. And if some dont want to abide by them, let them >go somewhere else. There are plenty of other news groups from which to >choose. >Post On. >George > > ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:01 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw RE: institutions and circumstances associated with birth of Faith FYI -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Ian Kluge Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 3:59 PM Subject: RE: institutions and circumstances associated with birth of Faith > >Ian: > >Thanks for the generous clarification, and sorry if I misread your >position. I'm glad to hear that you don't dismiss historical >contextualization as worthless. As for being imprisoned in it, no one is >advocating that (except Judge Bork). My argument would be, however, that >in order to know what Baha'u'llah meant by the things he said in the Tablet >of the World, it is necessary (or at least highly desirable) to know that >it was written in the summer of 1891 in response to the Tobacco Revolt in >Iran. But I shouldn't get ahead of the book, which I hope you'll enjoy. > >Since you have been so frank and forthcoming, let me be equally so. Many >thinking people have been for the past two centuries giving serious thought >to how to construct a new, global civilization that would transcend the >tribalisms and narrowness and chauvinism of the current ones. The >*technology* for global civilization is increasingly in place, so it has >become possible. And it is increasingly urgent, what with ecological >problems, nuclear proliferation, and the need for economic cooperation. We >are concerned that the new global civilization preserve the best of what >came before while providing a unified 'platform' upon which the planet can >peaceably work out its differences and problems. Many of us think that >both nationalism and religion are hindrances to this endeavor and must be >jettisoned. Others among us think spirituality as opposed to religion a >key heritage of humankind that must contribute to the efflorescence of the >new world. > >In my youth I abhorred organized religion for its self-righteousness, >mindless conservatism, complicity with the rich and the warlike, and >demands for conformity. I was for many years, however, persuaded that the >Baha'i faith was different, was the organized religion for people who >didn't like organized religion, and all the other fireside slogans. > >In the end, of course, it became perfectly obvious to me that the Baha'i >faith has deteriorated into a narrow organized religion just like all the >others, with the same demands for conformity and blind obedience, the same >cozying up to the rich and powerful, the same intolerance and bigotry. Of >course, from inside an organized religion all of these values are seen >positively. Intolerance is just drawing boundaries that protect the >integrity of the faith, bigotry is just protecting the faithful from >dangerous ideas or people. Any Jesuit could defend it to us without a >moment's reflection. But the end result is bigotry, intolerance, demands >for intellectual stifling and conformity, and no euphemisms can disguise it. > >Of course, not all Baha'is have become wedded to such a vision of their >faith, but the more powerful ones appear to have. And what this means is >that the Baha'i faith, as an organized community, has become just another >sectarian body, and therefore has decreased usefulness to those of us who >wish to build the world civilization. Sectarian boundary-drawing is the >very antithesis of global rehabilitation. Authoritarianism, papal >infallibility, coddling of dictators, censorship, prejudice against gays >and other subcultures, and shunning, all belong to the old world order, not >the new we envision. > >But very importantly, Baha'u'llah and some other Baha'i figures are most >certainly not irrelevant to thinking about the new global civilization. He >had a vision that can inspire. He disclaimed coming to impose laws; that >had been the Bab's job. He disclaimed coming to impose an orthodoxy; >rather, each must fare upon the spiritual path according to the state >(hal), station (maqam), and perception (idrak) that he or she had thus far >attained, and, he said, we cannot expect people to agree on dogmas because >each is at a different station. He desired the end of prejudices, the end >of shunning of some groups by others, the end of narrow sectarian >boundary-drawing. Baha'u'llah wished to contribute to the new emerging >global civilization not *a* religion, but Religion, true religion, >spirituality. He did not mean to make rules about what you could say and >still be a Baha'i. He did not think what people *said* had anything to do >with being Baha'is. He thought that being a Baha'i meant universal love, >tolerance, peace, and harmony with all. By those standards the >self-appointed (and, O.K., sometimes elected) guardians of Baha'i >'orthodoxy' are not Baha'is at all. Or, rather, they are Baha'is with a >capital 'B', Baha'is as others are Roman Catholics and Shi`ites. But they >are not ahl-i Baha, the followers of the ideals of Baha'u'llah, which were >intended to transcend narrow sectarian boundaries (just as most Christians >are really followers of Jesus). > >So if they wish to disfellowship and excommunicate all those who believe >that gays should be treated like human beings, or that women really should >have equal rights all the way through, or that Reason is a valid means of >understanding what Baha'u'llah's message portended, then that is their >choice as religious leaders. (One can imagine the placards: "NO PLACE FOR >ELLEN DEGENERIS IN THE BAHA'I FAITH"; "A WOMAN'S PLACE IS NOT ON THE >HOUSE;" "MYSTERY, NOT HISTORY!" "CENSORSHIP IS CLOSE TO GODLINESS") But >all it does is reduce their form of their religion to a sect, and make it >inappropriate as the vehicle of World Civilization. > >So, we globalists are interested in Baha'u'llah, and a contextualized >understanding of exactly what he thought. We are not interested in the >rather odd folk traditions and authoritarian sectarianism that grew up in >the cultic milieu of Iran and the US over the 20th century, and which >represent themselves as 'the Baha'i Faith.' The latter are useless to us >in our quest for what is universal, global, tolerant, loving and >harmonious. The former is not, and, indeed, could be a fountainhead of >humankind's evolution toward greater maturity if only he could be freed >from the cultic aura in which he has been trapped. Baha'u'llah is the >heritage of all humankind, and it is the business of us globalists to >reclaim that heritage from persons who have made him into a mere auctioneer. > > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:01 AM Subject: fw RE: institutions and circumstances associated with birth of Faith FYI -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Ian Kluge Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 3:59 PM Subject: RE: institutions and circumstances associated with birth of Faith > >Ian: > >Thanks for the generous clarification, and sorry if I misread your >position. I'm glad to hear that you don't dismiss historical >contextualization as worthless. As for being imprisoned in it, no one is >advocating that (except Judge Bork). My argument would be, however, that >in order to know what Baha'u'llah meant by the things he said in the Tablet >of the World, it is necessary (or at least highly desirable) to know that >it was written in the summer of 1891 in response to the Tobacco Revolt in >Iran. But I shouldn't get ahead of the book, which I hope you'll enjoy. > >Since you have been so frank and forthcoming, let me be equally so. Many >thinking people have been for the past two centuries giving serious thought >to how to construct a new, global civilization that would transcend the >tribalisms and narrowness and chauvinism of the current ones. The >*technology* for global civilization is increasingly in place, so it has >become possible. And it is increasingly urgent, what with ecological >problems, nuclear proliferation, and the need for economic cooperation. We >are concerned that the new global civilization preserve the best of what >came before while providing a unified 'platform' upon which the planet can >peaceably work out its differences and problems. Many of us think that >both nationalism and religion are hindrances to this endeavor and must be >jettisoned. Others among us think spirituality as opposed to religion a >key heritage of humankind that must contribute to the efflorescence of the >new world. > >In my youth I abhorred organized religion for its self-righteousness, >mindless conservatism, complicity with the rich and the warlike, and >demands for conformity. I was for many years, however, persuaded that the >Baha'i faith was different, was the organized religion for people who >didn't like organized religion, and all the other fireside slogans. > >In the end, of course, it became perfectly obvious to me that the Baha'i >faith has deteriorated into a narrow organized religion just like all the >others, with the same demands for conformity and blind obedience, the same >cozying up to the rich and powerful, the same intolerance and bigotry. Of >course, from inside an organized religion all of these values are seen >positively. Intolerance is just drawing boundaries that protect the >integrity of the faith, bigotry is just protecting the faithful from >dangerous ideas or people. Any Jesuit could defend it to us without a >moment's reflection. But the end result is bigotry, intolerance, demands >for intellectual stifling and conformity, and no euphemisms can disguise it. > >Of course, not all Baha'is have become wedded to such a vision of their >faith, but the more powerful ones appear to have. And what this means is >that the Baha'i faith, as an organized community, has become just another >sectarian body, and therefore has decreased usefulness to those of us who >wish to build the world civilization. Sectarian boundary-drawing is the >very antithesis of global rehabilitation. Authoritarianism, papal >infallibility, coddling of dictators, censorship, prejudice against gays >and other subcultures, and shunning, all belong to the old world order, not >the new we envision. > >But very importantly, Baha'u'llah and some other Baha'i figures are most >certainly not irrelevant to thinking about the new global civilization. He >had a vision that can inspire. He disclaimed coming to impose laws; that >had been the Bab's job. He disclaimed coming to impose an orthodoxy; >rather, each must fare upon the spiritual path according to the state >(hal), station (maqam), and perception (idrak) that he or she had thus far >attained, and, he said, we cannot expect people to agree on dogmas because >each is at a different station. He desired the end of prejudices, the end >of shunning of some groups by others, the end of narrow sectarian >boundary-drawing. Baha'u'llah wished to contribute to the new emerging >global civilization not *a* religion, but Religion, true religion, >spirituality. He did not mean to make rules about what you could say and >still be a Baha'i. He did not think what people *said* had anything to do >with being Baha'is. He thought that being a Baha'i meant universal love, >tolerance, peace, and harmony with all. By those standards the >self-appointed (and, O.K., sometimes elected) guardians of Baha'i >'orthodoxy' are not Baha'is at all. Or, rather, they are Baha'is with a >capital 'B', Baha'is as others are Roman Catholics and Shi`ites. But they >are not ahl-i Baha, the followers of the ideals of Baha'u'llah, which were >intended to transcend narrow sectarian boundaries (just as most Christians >are really followers of Jesus). > >So if they wish to disfellowship and excommunicate all those who believe >that gays should be treated like human beings, or that women really should >have equal rights all the way through, or that Reason is a valid means of >understanding what Baha'u'llah's message portended, then that is their >choice as religious leaders. (One can imagine the placards: "NO PLACE FOR >ELLEN DEGENERIS IN THE BAHA'I FAITH"; "A WOMAN'S PLACE IS NOT ON THE >HOUSE;" "MYSTERY, NOT HISTORY!" "CENSORSHIP IS CLOSE TO GODLINESS") But >all it does is reduce their form of their religion to a sect, and make it >inappropriate as the vehicle of World Civilization. > >So, we globalists are interested in Baha'u'llah, and a contextualized >understanding of exactly what he thought. We are not interested in the >rather odd folk traditions and authoritarian sectarianism that grew up in >the cultic milieu of Iran and the US over the 20th century, and which >represent themselves as 'the Baha'i Faith.' The latter are useless to us >in our quest for what is universal, global, tolerant, loving and >harmonious. The former is not, and, indeed, could be a fountainhead of >humankind's evolution toward greater maturity if only he could be freed >from the cultic aura in which he has been trapped. Baha'u'llah is the >heritage of all humankind, and it is the business of us globalists to >reclaim that heritage from persons who have made him into a mere auctioneer. > > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:44 AM To: talisman; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] SRB Forgery of my signature file -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: talisman ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] SRB Forgery of my signature file >Frederick Glaysher wrote > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM >>Subject: Forgery of my signature file > >[snip] >>>I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a >>>practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on >>>this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... >[snip] > >What "forgery"? The moderators seem to >have deleted multiple cross-references from the end of the >signature file, while correctly attributing the message to you. The forged the form and content of that message making it appear to be the original from me. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY: "FORGE: To fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit." > >I do not see where they have broadcast a message that you did not >write and incorrectly attribute it to you in an attempt to deceive or >defraud others, or where they have falsely and fraudlently altered >a document. It was a message I wrote, entirely consisting of a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha, with not a single word from me. That's the irony of it. SRB fraud directly under the words of Abdu'l-Baha praising free speech and conscience.... Incidently, as I have posted in this thread early on, they held this post for EIGHT days while posting several other messages from other Bahais and only posted my message when I sent them another email questioning the whereabouts of my post. Then, Bill Hyman corrupted my sig file before posting it.... And has gone on to justify his perfidy.... > >I have, in quoting your message, deleted your ENTIRE signature file, >as well as most of your message, which is normal protocol to prevent >burning bandwidth by repeating entire messages. You're obviously arguing here in less than good faith.... As Maryam Butson has pointed out, many Bahais commonly post long sig files to srb with no problem whatsoever.... > >If the information in your signature file is actually relevant to your >message, then put it IN the message. ditto > >You wanted to know what others thought of their actions? I know what fundamentalist Bahais think; I'm more interested in knowing what honest and sincere Bahais or non-Bahais think of such deceit on the part of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." > >I APPLAUD the moderators for this action to benefit the list and >reduce bandwidth taken by multiple posting and reposting of >the same information. Everyone should do it. You present a sad and sorry picture of the Bahai mind.... > >Wade > > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:44 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] SRB Forgery of my signature file -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: talisman ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 9:02 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] SRB Forgery of my signature file >Frederick Glaysher wrote > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >>Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM >>Subject: Forgery of my signature file > >[snip] >>>I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a >>>practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on >>>this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... >[snip] > >What "forgery"? The moderators seem to >have deleted multiple cross-references from the end of the >signature file, while correctly attributing the message to you. The forged the form and content of that message making it appear to be the original from me. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY: "FORGE: To fashion or reproduce for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit." > >I do not see where they have broadcast a message that you did not >write and incorrectly attribute it to you in an attempt to deceive or >defraud others, or where they have falsely and fraudlently altered >a document. It was a message I wrote, entirely consisting of a quotation of Abdu'l-Baha, with not a single word from me. That's the irony of it. SRB fraud directly under the words of Abdu'l-Baha praising free speech and conscience.... Incidently, as I have posted in this thread early on, they held this post for EIGHT days while posting several other messages from other Bahais and only posted my message when I sent them another email questioning the whereabouts of my post. Then, Bill Hyman corrupted my sig file before posting it.... And has gone on to justify his perfidy.... > >I have, in quoting your message, deleted your ENTIRE signature file, >as well as most of your message, which is normal protocol to prevent >burning bandwidth by repeating entire messages. You're obviously arguing here in less than good faith.... As Maryam Butson has pointed out, many Bahais commonly post long sig files to srb with no problem whatsoever.... > >If the information in your signature file is actually relevant to your >message, then put it IN the message. ditto > >You wanted to know what others thought of their actions? I know what fundamentalist Bahais think; I'm more interested in knowing what honest and sincere Bahais or non-Bahais think of such deceit on the part of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." > >I APPLAUD the moderators for this action to benefit the list and >reduce bandwidth taken by multiple posting and reposting of >the same information. Everyone should do it. You present a sad and sorry picture of the Bahai mind.... > >Wade > > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 8:47 AM Subject: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com ; talisman Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:58 PM Subject: Re: Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship > >Dear Miguel: > >1) While it is true that both the internet and the Baha'i faith are global >in nature, it is also true that a) the vast majority of internet >connections are in free, educated and relatively well off societies such as >the U.S. and b) the vast majority of literate Baha'is in the world live in >the U.S. and Canada. It therefore makes at least a little sense for both >the Baha'i faith's administration and for SRB to adopt policies that don't >drive off hundreds or thousands of thinking people. > >2) I was not arguing against the legitimate laws of the Baha'i religion, >which I respect. I was arguing that when the administration gets to the >point where they threaten to have university professors declared covenant >breakers for running an Indiana University listserv and for making >non-fundamentalist postings, then the administration has become not only >intellectually bankrupt but also repressive and corrupt in a manner that >betrays the basic teachings of the religion's holy figures. And when you >betray what you are supposed to be standing for, you guarantee your own >stagnation or decline. > >Case in point. From May 1, 1997 till May 1, 1998, the *gross* increase in >the number of Baha'is in the U.S. was about 1,500. Subtract withdrawals >(formal and informal), deaths, and persons subjected to administrative >sanctions, and you probably are pretty close to stagnant. This stagnation >is a result of the Baha'i administration not standing for what the religion >stands for, of it being overly controlling and overly centralized and >exclusivist. > >You get invited into the Baha'i faith being assured it believes all >religions are one, all humankind is one, that there should be universal >peace, love, and harmony, that women and men are equal, and that there >should be unity of science and religion. > >And then you find out that Baha'is actually are busy shunning other people, >are quick to put anyone within the community into the category of 'covenant >breaker' who has a different outlook (as Doug Martin did to me beginning in >the early 1980s, backbiting me behind the scenes), demand conformity, >believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be >subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological >science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in general >often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, chasing people >out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. (How many Baha'is are there >in Poland, *really*?) > >It is not just a problem of people failing to live up to their scriptural >values, as with most religions. It is a problem of people being committed >to the diametric opposite of their scriptural values. A child could >formulate it. It is a problem of people being mean when they were >commanded to be nice. It is a problem of people being narrow and exclusive >when they were commanded to be universal and inclusive. And the meanest of >all are people like Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, who now control the >levers of power by virtue of having clawed their way on to the House. > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:45 PM To: talisman Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? -----Original Message----- From: R Wade Schuette To: talisman Cc: schuette@umich.edu Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 12:26 PM Subject: Ad hominem attacks? > >Fred Glaysher's response to my posting, >quoted (sorry) in entirety (unaltered) below >strikes me as an ad hominem attack that should >not be acceptable on a University of Michigan server, >as well as not acceptable on Talisman regardless of >its location. I'm willing to discuss it.... Sorry to hurt your feelings.... That was not my intention. But it does appear to me that you are ignoring the issues at hand, namely Bill Hyman's forging my sig file for posting soc.religion.bahai and the threat made on me by a member of the Bahai Faith, Bud Polk. Soc.religion.bahai REGULARLY posts other people's messages with extensive sig files attached and unchanged. Again, Maryam Butson's response to Bill Hyman documents the fact with two or three examples. You appeared to me to be ignoring those facts. Also, Hyman does not mention "bandwidth" in any way as you do. He stated clearly that he censored my message because he considered it "advertising," apparently acceptable with him if one is a srb lackey.... In terms of the picture of the Bahai mind, I'm talking in generic terms there as one would of the Russian mind, the Chinese, etc.... That's the way I see. The Bahai mind as it has revealed itself among many Bahais in regard to the issue of free speech and conscience is simply pathetic.... It seems to me you must be very frustrated to attack me in this way.... I suggest we keep the discussion on the issues at hand and not try to change them into character attacks and assassination.... > >In particular I object to his assertions: >> You're obviously arguing here in less than good faith. >and >> I know what fundamentalist Bahais think; I'm more interested >> in knowing what honest and sincere Bahais or non-Bahais >> think.. >and >> You present a sad and sorry picture of the Bahai mind.... >> > >The University of Michigan Guidelines for Responsible Use >https://www.umich.edu/~wwwitd/policies/responsible-use.html >state, in part, that > >"When you use the University of Michigan's computing services, you accept >the following specific responsibilities: >... > 2.To respect the rights of other users; for example, you shall comply >with all University policies regarding sexual, racial, and other forms of > harassment. The University of Michigan is committed to being a >racially, ethnically, and religiously heterogeneous community. " > > If he continues to use this list as a forum for such >personal attacks, I would like to request that consideration >be given to suspending him from Talisman. > > Wade Schuette > University of Michigan > > >----------------------------------------------------------- > > > >On Fri, 5 Jun 1998, Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette >> To: talisman ; bahai-faith @ makelist.com >> >> Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 9:02 AM >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] SRB Forgery of my signature file >> >> >> >Frederick Glaysher wrote >> > >> >>-----Original Message----- >> >>From: FG >> >>Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> >>Date: Thursday, June 04, 1998 8:06 AM >> >>Subject: Forgery of my signature file >> > >> >[snip] >> >>>I would like to know what other readers of srb think of such a >> >>>practice and would like the benefit of your consultation on >> >>>this most serious misuse of authority by the moderators.... >> >[snip] >> > >> >What "forgery"? The moderators seem to >> >have deleted multiple cross-references from the end of the >> >signature file, while correctly attributing the message to you. >> >> The forged the form and content of that message making >> it appear to be the original from me. THE AMERICAN >> HERITAGE DICTIONARY: "FORGE: To fashion or reproduce >> for fraudulent purposes; counterfeit." >> >> > >> >I do not see where they have broadcast a message that you did not >> >write and incorrectly attribute it to you in an attempt to deceive or >> >defraud others, or where they have falsely and fraudlently altered >> >a document. >> >> It was a message I wrote, entirely consisting of a quotation of >> Abdu'l-Baha, with not a single word from me. That's the irony of >> it. SRB fraud directly under the words of Abdu'l-Baha praising >> free speech and conscience.... Incidently, as I have posted in >> this thread early on, they held this post for EIGHT days while >> posting several other messages from other Bahais and only >> posted my message when I sent them another email questioning >> the whereabouts of my post. Then, Bill Hyman corrupted my sig file >> before posting it.... And has gone on to justify his perfidy.... >> >> > >> >I have, in quoting your message, deleted your ENTIRE signature file, >> >as well as most of your message, which is normal protocol to prevent >> >burning bandwidth by repeating entire messages. >> >> You're obviously arguing here in less than good faith.... As Maryam >> Butson has pointed out, many Bahais commonly post long sig files >> to srb with no problem whatsoever.... >> >> > >> >If the information in your signature file is actually relevant to your >> >message, then put it IN the message. >> >> ditto >> >> > >> >You wanted to know what others thought of their actions? >> >> I know what fundamentalist Bahais think; I'm more interested >> in knowing what honest and sincere Bahais or non-Bahais >> think of such deceit on the part of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." >> >> > >> >I APPLAUD the moderators for this action to benefit the list and >> >reduce bandwidth taken by multiple posting and reposting of >> >the same information. Everyone should do it. >> >> You present a sad and sorry picture of the Bahai mind.... >> >> > >> >Wade >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >---- >> >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >-- >> >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:51 PM To: Juan Cole Cc: talisman Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Sorry to hurt your feelings, Wade. I apologize. Please explain for me why it is justifiable Bahai procedure for Bill Hyman to slash my sig file but not, let's say, as Maryam Butson pointed out, Graham Sorenson's or Chris Manvell's? >>> >You wanted to know what others thought of their actions? >>> >>> I know what fundamentalist Bahais think; I'm more interested >>> in knowing what honest and sincere Bahais or non-Bahais >>> think of such deceit on the part of soc.religion.bahai "moderators." >>> >>> > >>> >I APPLAUD the moderators for this action to benefit the list and >>> >reduce bandwidth taken by multiple posting and reposting of >>> >the same information. Everyone should do it. >>> >>> You present a sad and sorry picture of the Bahai mind.... >>> >>> > >>> >Wade ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:54 PM To: talisman Subject: Fw: [bahai-faith] Softening the rhetoric FYI -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 11:49 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Softening the rhetoric >According to Frederick Glaysher: >> >> They're passages from the writings he quoted in an >> attempt to change the subject from Hyman's forging >> my sig file > >Roger is right; forging implies his writing something and claiming >you wrote it. Instead, Hyman edited your sig file. It was still >arbitrary, unfounded in policy, and done without consulting you. >(As was his rejection of my post about `Abdu'l Baha's predictions >of all religions being unified in this century, which he >apparently just threw away. Perhaps because I'd proven him wrong >in having denied such a passage exists.) Hyman is clearly a real >detriment as srb moderator. Quite unlike any others I've ever >dealt with. But forgery is an excessive charge. > > to backbiting and criticism, from Bud Polk's >> threatening me, to it being all my fault.... > >Again, you're making more of this than what happened. He didn't >outright threaten you; his message was harassment, in my book, >with an *implicit* threat at best. >> >Sometimes, Fred, I think your excessive rhetoric plays right into >the hands of Baha'i defenders of the status quo (even defenders >of Hyman and Polk in these indefensible instances.) If you would >just calmly describe what they did, rather than editorialize >about it, I think it would have more persuasive power. > >At other times, I wonder if any critic of destructive behavior by >any Baha'i (e.g. the Danesh incident in Canada, described by Cole >and Scholl in various emails) will ever get the least bit of >credence from any other Baha'i. Those who don't want to hear bad news >will always blame the messenger rather than attend to the >problem. > >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 3:05 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Roger Reini wrote in message <3578fa1f.47550447@news.newsguy.com>... >On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:48:49 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: "Truncation" glosses over >>what was done.... > >... although it is factually accurate. > >You do make a good point about long signatures being accepted from >other individuals. IMHO, it would be best if there were a firm limit >on the length of signatures, with any exceeding that length to be >truncated or rejected for posting. We'll have to agree to disagree, Roger.... Hyman made my address appear as though it were an original without consulting me. That's dishonest, short and simple, and forgery.... Again, he, and I, put in arrows or greater than signs, whichever you prefer.... Truncating anything in itself is still forgery if it make some appear otherwise than what it is or was.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 05, 1998 3:05 PM Subject: Re: SRB Forgery of my signature file Roger Reini wrote in message <3578fa1f.47550447@news.newsguy.com>... >On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 06:48:49 -0400, "Frederick Glaysher" > wrote: "Truncation" glosses over >>what was done.... > >... although it is factually accurate. > >You do make a good point about long signatures being accepted from >other individuals. IMHO, it would be best if there were a firm limit >on the length of signatures, with any exceeding that length to be >truncated or rejected for posting. We'll have to agree to disagree, Roger.... Hyman made my address appear as though it were an original without consulting me. That's dishonest, short and simple, and forgery.... Again, he, and I, put in arrows or greater than signs, whichever you prefer.... Truncating anything in itself is still forgery if it make some appear otherwise than what it is or was.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 7:53 PM Subject: fw Women on the House [bahai] -----Original Message----- From: Alison and Steve Marshall To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: jrcole@umich.edu Date: Saturday, June 06, 1998 8:51 PM Subject: Women on the House >Dear Talismanians > >I've finished reading Juan's book and here's my attempt to reconstruct some >basic arguments that show how the issue of women on the House is >problematic. All references are to Juan's book, unless I say otherwise. > > >1. What Baha'u'llah said > >In the Kitab-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah on one occasion addresses the members of >the House of Justice as men (rijal). "Oh ye Men of Justice! Be ye, in the >realm of God, shepherds unto His sheep..." (Aqdas p. 38) > >In Questions and Answers, he says: "Should a treasure trove be found, one >third thereof is the right of the discoverer, and the other two thirds >should be expended by the men of the House of Justice for the welfare of the >people." (Aqdas p. 137) > >In Ishraqat (a supplement to the Kitab-i-Aqdas), he says: "The men of God's >House of Justice have been charged with the affairs of the people." (Tablets >of Baha'u'llah, p. 128) And again: "It is incumbent upon the men of God's >House of Justice to fix their gaze by day and by night upon that which hath >shone forth from the Pen of Glory for the training of peoples..." (Tablets >of Baha'u'llah, p 125) > >In Kalimat-i-Firdawsiyyih (a supplement to the Kitab-i-Aqdas), he says: "We >exhort the men of the House of Justice and command them to ensure the >protection and safeguarding of men, women and children." (Tablets of >Baha'u'llah, pp 69-70) > >In these passages, was Baha'u'llah referring to the Universal House of >Justice or all houses of justice? If women are excluded from the Universal >house on the basis of these texts, then perhaps women should be excluded >from all houses of justice. Current Baha'i thinking is that these are >references to the Universal House of Justice. There seems to be no good >reason why they can't all relate to houses at all levels. Juan cites a >passage (p. 173) where Baha'u'llah refers to the "men of Baha'i houses of >justice", indicating that on at least one occasion Baha'u'llah used the word >'rijal' to refer to *all* house of justice members. There is evidence that >'Abdu'l-Baha interpreted him to mean this also. > >It can be argued that when Baha'u'llah used the word 'rijal', he could be >interpreted to mean both women and men. Juan quotes Baha'u'llah (p. 176): >"Today, the maidservants of God are accounted as men." "O maidservants, >arise in a masculine way for the sake of God's Cause. A goodly number of >women are today mentioned by God as men, whereas some men are reckoned as >women". "...the servants of God and His handmaidens are regarded on the same >Plane". "Verily, in the eyes of Baha women are the same as men. All are >God's creation, which He created in his image and likeness, that is, they >are manifestations of His names and attributes." > >In fact, so much is it the case that women can have divine attributes that >they can be manifestations of God: "Know thou moreover that in the Day of >Revelation were He to pronounce one of the leaves to be the manifestation of >all His excellent titles, unto no one is given the right to utter why or >wherefore, and should one do so he would be regarded as a disbeliever in God >and be numbered with such as have repudiated His Truth." (Tablets of >Baha'u'llah p 185) IMV, it makes little sense to hold that women can be >manifestations of God but not members of the Universal House of Justice! > > >2. What 'Abdu'l-Baha said > >Juan explains (p 182-3) that women were initially on the Chicago house, but >that it was reconstituted in 1901 with men only, "partly at the instance of >Persian male teachers, apparently on the grounds that women menstruated and >were therefore frequently ritually impure". > >In 1902, 'Abdu'l-Baha told Corrine True that women could not serve on the >Chicago House because Baha'u'llah refers to the members of the houses of >justice as men. > >In 1909, 'Abdu'l-Baha told Corrine True that women could serve on 'spiritual >assemblies' but not the 'general house of justice'. At the time, 'spiritual >assembly' was jargon for "women's gatherings" (p 183). Baha'is now argue >that 'general house of justice' was a reference to the Universal House of >Justice, but the Baha'is who received the letter thought it referred to the >Chicago house, which fits with their understanding of 'spiritual assembly'. >Moreover, the Universal House of Justice wasn't around then. > >In 1912, 'Abdu'l-Baha came to America and said that women could be members >of the Chicago house of justice. > >Juan tells us that (p 182-3): "['Abdu'l-Baha] wrote a letter a year later, >in 1913, in which he said women would enter all fields except military >service and service on 'the house of justice,' adding, 'When the women >attain to the ultimate degree of progress, then, according to the exigency >of the time and place and their great capacity, they shall obtain >extraordinary privileges.'" > >It would appear, then, that in 1902, 'Abdu'l-Baha argued that women couldn't >be on the Chicago house because women were barred from being members of >*any* house of justice. This indicates that 'Abdu'l-Baha's initial >interpretation of Baha'u'llah's reference to rijal was that it applied >across the board. Given this, there is no reason to interpret the 1909 >letter to mean, as Baha'is currently see it, that 'Abdu'l-Baha meant to bar >women from only the Universal House of Justice. So, when 'Abdul-Baha allowed >women on to the Chicago house, this should have meant that the reversal >applied across the board. Juan explains (p 183) that current Baha'is have >taken the 1913 letter to mean that women could serve on national and local >houses, but not the Universal one. However, 'Abdu'l-Baha never actually came >right out and made such a distinction; at best it is based on a dubious >interpretation of the 1909 letter. > >The above shows that it is not clear what 'Abdu'l-Baha intended. He was >confronted with two worlds, Western and Eastern, and the conditions for >women in each was very different. Juan says that what 'Abdu'l-Baha told the >western women to do was different to what he told the Persian women to do (p >184). Surely, the fact that he at one point actively enabled women to be on >a house of justice indicated that he thought that this was the way things >would go, or the way things should be in conditions such as they were in the >West at the time. Juan suggests that the 1913 letter could be interpreted to >"hold out hope" (p 183). > > > >As I see it, nowhere does Baha'u'llah actually come out and say that the >House of Justice members must be men. He describes them in passing as men, >but never makes a positive law of it. So, in effect we have based a positive >exclusion on a word that was not even necessary for the purpose of the >passages in which it was used - Baha'u'llah could have referred to the women >of the House of Justice and those passages would not be altered in meaning. >This rings alarm bells for me. Surely, justifying an exclusion that prima >facie is inconsistent with the positive principle of equality needs a more >solid foundation. Look at the law relating to polygyny. There 'Abdul-Baha >clearly says that Baha'u'llah meant men to have only one wife, and in doing >this, gave a positive principle to justify his position, that of justice and >treating people equitably. But here there seems to be no principle that can >be invoked to overturn equality, except perhaps the idea of gradualism, as >suggested by 'Abdu'l-Baha's position, but this would last only a limited time. > >Given the lack of clarity, I suggest that we have a situation that is not >covered in the Book. This means that the House of Justice *can* rule on the >matter, being a legislative body, and change its constitution, which would >bring it into line with modern circumstances. > >Alison Marshall > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Alison & Steve Marshall, Aotearoa | "My Lord! You know that I do not like >forumbahai@es.co.nz (New Zealand) | any one to face your countenance except >Try: https://www.rightwords.co.nz/ | with the proof of reason." -The Bab > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 7:58 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Women on the House fyi -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Alison and Steve Marshall Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 2:26 AM Subject: Re: Women on the House > >Once again, Alison has done a superb job at summarizing the argument I >attempted to make. > >But I should also acknowledge that I was able to piece together that >account only because of the intensive rounds of discussion of the issue on >Talisman@indiana.edu, in which some of the information came out in the >course of discussion, and in which widely varying interpretations of the >available evidence were put forward. The whole issue seems to me still >rather murky, and full of historical zigzags. But what clarity I did get >came from discussions with a wide range of email correspondents among the >Talismanians. > >This seems to me one of the more exciting aspects of cyberspace. In the >old days an academic like myself would not have been in close contact with >people outside the university, and would not have generally known what they >thought about the specifics of such issues. The give and take was, for me, >breathtaking, and immensely improved my initial arguments. Usually there >is a cycle in academia whereby you research some issue and publish >something, then over the next 10 years people (mainly other researchers) >reply with critiques, causing you to revise your views and to write a new >article that takes account of all the new research and information. And >then there is another round of debate. Although this process seems >confusing to non-academics outside the field, a great deal of progress can >be made over time. > >But on Talisman the cycle was speeded up enormously. I didn't have to wait >5 or 10 years for an informed response to something I said on the >issue--one came the next day or anyway within the week! We'd go for a >month at a time investigating the subject jointly and intensively >(September 1995 sticks in my mind as a particularly fruitful month for this >issue). So what is in my book is a much more mature over-all argument than >I would have been able to achieve on my own in a first publication on the >subject. I have many of you to thank for it. I'm only sorry, given how >useful this sort of interchange among university and non-university >thinkers on a subject proved, that it was more or less busted up and is now >impossible to get going again with the same enthusiasm and scale. > >The bad news is that any structure or system that cannot make room for and >even promote such free inquiry and advances in knowledge is probably >doomed, as surely as was the old Soviet Union (where open debate was also >forbidden). Free inquiry and critical research have been high ideals of >enlightened societies for a couple of centuries by now, but what has >changed is that they aren't just ideals that can be taken or left any more. > They are the engines of the Information Revolution (and I take that >Revolution to include things like the Genome project, not just the >Internet). Any organization that locks itself out of vigorous and active >advances in knowledge of the sort talisman@indiana.edu represented is just >ensuring that it is left behind in the dust of history. > >As for women serving on the universal house of justice, I find it sad and >ironic that women advocates of this possibility like Linda Walbridge were >forced out of the faith by male religious authorities who felt threatened >by the possibility. > >cheers Juan > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:08 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Censored from S.R.B 6 Jun 1998 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefjj$c77$1@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >I am returning your submission to you unposted as it falls outside the >charter >of soc-religion-bahai. Mainly, you level accusations at specific >individuals, >institutions, as well as bringing up the names of other individuals and >their >experiences. This is not to say what you have stated is not true. It is, >however, outside the charter of this newsgroup to post submissions of this >nature. > >If you would care to revise your submission, leaving out specific >indiviuals and >institutions, we can reconsider posting it. > >Sinerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:27 PM >Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > > >In article <"xv2A1B.A.Y8C._02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> , >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com writes: > >Only after the individual demonstrates an unwillingness to >>abide by these few basic laws would some action be taken, such as withdrawal >>of administrative privileges. The aim is always to lovingly assist that >>person to more closely align him/herself with the Laws of God. > > > > >Except that we are talking about people who choose to _leave_ the Baha'i >religion, _then_ being investigated, not someone who chooses to stay and >believes in and chooses to abide by the institutions. > >You are referring to investigations of behavior of an individual >identifying himself as a Baha'i. > > > >>> In article <"6a5-SC.A.huF.Pgub1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >>> compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>> >I believe National >>> >investigates everyone who wants to withdraw from the Faith. We recently >>> had >>> >a woman resign from our spiritual assembly to lead a lesbian lifestyle and >>> >National needed confirmation from members of the Assembly that it was not a >>> >frivolous or spite induced resignation. > >Here is the original quote--you can see that it refers to people who tell >the National Baha'i Assembly they are not Baha'is anymore, then being >"investigated" in some manner to "confirm" that the resignation was not >"frivolous or spite-induced". > >I withdrew from the Baha'i faith myself in March timeframe of 1994, and >was harassed by the Local Baha'i Assembly of Chapel Hill, NC, who refused >to recognise my statement of withdrawal. > >I decided to get married and my mentally-disturbed mother withdrew >consent. I decided that the teachings no longer made sense--my doubts >turned into disbelief in the whole package. I still believe in many >individual truths I found in the Faith but not in the entire package as >an entire truth which must be believed in every jot and tittle, and from >which all deviation is naught but error. > > >It was a difficult time for me, but the fact that the Chapel Hill (NC) >Baha'i Assembly continued to harass me, sending me carbon copies of mail >sent to the National Assembly complaining about my "immoral" behavior >with regards to my wife, and complaining about my getting married, and >petitioned to have my voting rights removed after I clearly mailed them >demanding they remove my names from the rolls, left a bad taste in my >mouth. > >So I have first hand knowlege of what kinds of "investigation" go on and >if I had not frankly written both the National Assembly and the Chapel >Hill Baha'i Assembly stating my withdrawal in the clearest terms and >stating my demand that they accept my withdrawal at face value, I am >certain I would have had my "voting rights" removed as a non-Baha'i. I >guess the symbolic punishment of the "heretic", the desire to inflict >retribution, runs deep in some Baha'is. > >I hope my experience was an aberration, and that Baha'is in general >desire to maintain their image of acceptance with the non-Baha'i >community and not to persecute their "apostates", but after hearing about >more "investigations" of everyone who withdraws I am finding it easy to >believe otherwise. > >Certainly the entire episode with Juan Cole, the Waldbridges, and the >Talisman list would seem to indicate a religious organization intent on >thought-control, suppression of dissent, non-freedom of thought, >conformity, and spiritual decay. Although my experience in the faith was >generally very positive and my encounters with this kind of fanaticism >were few in number, perhaps that is no longer the case in these days of >turmoil before the advent of the millenium. Perhaps the Baha'is whose >lives are dominated by the desire to control and command the thoughts and >beliefs of others have gained ascendency and now rule the roost. >Certainly the rampant censorship of numerous Baha'is on the internet by >the Baha'i organization which has been reported would indicate such a sad >trend. In a world of increasing openness and a place where everyone can >now find a voice on the internet, the Baha'is have chosen to place >themselves with such as the North Koreas of the world, with only >officially sanctioned viewpoints allowed to speak. > >I now find myself in the sad spectacle of seeing a faith that once taught >so much love and understanding and compassion becoming now a muzzle >stuffed in the mouths of those some would care not to hear, and now have >the power to silence through their eccleastical offices. > > > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:08 PM Subject: fw Re: Censored from S.R.B 6 Jun 1998 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefjj$c77$1@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >I am returning your submission to you unposted as it falls outside the >charter >of soc-religion-bahai. Mainly, you level accusations at specific >individuals, >institutions, as well as bringing up the names of other individuals and >their >experiences. This is not to say what you have stated is not true. It is, >however, outside the charter of this newsgroup to post submissions of this >nature. > >If you would care to revise your submission, leaving out specific >indiviuals and >institutions, we can reconsider posting it. > >Sinerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:27 PM >Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > > >In article <"xv2A1B.A.Y8C._02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> , >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com writes: > >Only after the individual demonstrates an unwillingness to >>abide by these few basic laws would some action be taken, such as withdrawal >>of administrative privileges. The aim is always to lovingly assist that >>person to more closely align him/herself with the Laws of God. > > > > >Except that we are talking about people who choose to _leave_ the Baha'i >religion, _then_ being investigated, not someone who chooses to stay and >believes in and chooses to abide by the institutions. > >You are referring to investigations of behavior of an individual >identifying himself as a Baha'i. > > > >>> In article <"6a5-SC.A.huF.Pgub1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >>> compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>> >I believe National >>> >investigates everyone who wants to withdraw from the Faith. We recently >>> had >>> >a woman resign from our spiritual assembly to lead a lesbian lifestyle and >>> >National needed confirmation from members of the Assembly that it was not a >>> >frivolous or spite induced resignation. > >Here is the original quote--you can see that it refers to people who tell >the National Baha'i Assembly they are not Baha'is anymore, then being >"investigated" in some manner to "confirm" that the resignation was not >"frivolous or spite-induced". > >I withdrew from the Baha'i faith myself in March timeframe of 1994, and >was harassed by the Local Baha'i Assembly of Chapel Hill, NC, who refused >to recognise my statement of withdrawal. > >I decided to get married and my mentally-disturbed mother withdrew >consent. I decided that the teachings no longer made sense--my doubts >turned into disbelief in the whole package. I still believe in many >individual truths I found in the Faith but not in the entire package as >an entire truth which must be believed in every jot and tittle, and from >which all deviation is naught but error. > > >It was a difficult time for me, but the fact that the Chapel Hill (NC) >Baha'i Assembly continued to harass me, sending me carbon copies of mail >sent to the National Assembly complaining about my "immoral" behavior >with regards to my wife, and complaining about my getting married, and >petitioned to have my voting rights removed after I clearly mailed them >demanding they remove my names from the rolls, left a bad taste in my >mouth. > >So I have first hand knowlege of what kinds of "investigation" go on and >if I had not frankly written both the National Assembly and the Chapel >Hill Baha'i Assembly stating my withdrawal in the clearest terms and >stating my demand that they accept my withdrawal at face value, I am >certain I would have had my "voting rights" removed as a non-Baha'i. I >guess the symbolic punishment of the "heretic", the desire to inflict >retribution, runs deep in some Baha'is. > >I hope my experience was an aberration, and that Baha'is in general >desire to maintain their image of acceptance with the non-Baha'i >community and not to persecute their "apostates", but after hearing about >more "investigations" of everyone who withdraws I am finding it easy to >believe otherwise. > >Certainly the entire episode with Juan Cole, the Waldbridges, and the >Talisman list would seem to indicate a religious organization intent on >thought-control, suppression of dissent, non-freedom of thought, >conformity, and spiritual decay. Although my experience in the faith was >generally very positive and my encounters with this kind of fanaticism >were few in number, perhaps that is no longer the case in these days of >turmoil before the advent of the millenium. Perhaps the Baha'is whose >lives are dominated by the desire to control and command the thoughts and >beliefs of others have gained ascendency and now rule the roost. >Certainly the rampant censorship of numerous Baha'is on the internet by >the Baha'i organization which has been reported would indicate such a sad >trend. In a world of increasing openness and a place where everyone can >now find a voice on the internet, the Baha'is have chosen to place >themselves with such as the North Koreas of the world, with only >officially sanctioned viewpoints allowed to speak. > >I now find myself in the sad spectacle of seeing a faith that once taught >so much love and understanding and compassion becoming now a muzzle >stuffed in the mouths of those some would care not to hear, and now have >the power to silence through their eccleastical offices. > > > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:09 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefl1$c77$2@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >Thank you for your submission. I am returning it to you unposted as it >appears >to be more of a personal comment and does not elaborate on the current >discussion nor does it have any link to the Baha'i Faith, which leaves it >outside the charter of srb. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: why choose bahai faith? > > >In article <"kSDVmC.A._6C.N02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>The trouble I have is that there are so few advantages now days offered by >>the Faith. Those of us who grew up Baha'i in my day had some wonderful >>examples to try to live up to. But these days the Baha'i pool has, it seems >>to me, been diluted. I can't go to a Baha'i meeting any more and pick out >>anyone at random and say I want my children to be like them. > >If you look around you and all you see are people you don't admire and >respect, perhaps you are in the wrong place. > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:09 PM Subject: fw Re: censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefl1$c77$2@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >Thank you for your submission. I am returning it to you unposted as it >appears >to be more of a personal comment and does not elaborate on the current >discussion nor does it have any link to the Baha'i Faith, which leaves it >outside the charter of srb. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: why choose bahai faith? > > >In article <"kSDVmC.A._6C.N02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>The trouble I have is that there are so few advantages now days offered by >>the Faith. Those of us who grew up Baha'i in my day had some wonderful >>examples to try to live up to. But these days the Baha'i pool has, it seems >>to me, been diluted. I can't go to a Baha'i meeting any more and pick out >>anyone at random and say I want my children to be like them. > >If you look around you and all you see are people you don't admire and >respect, perhaps you are in the wrong place. > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:16 PM Subject: Re: censorship Wim Kamerbeek wrote in message <"AZfWkD.A.ftB.6BYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >To introduce censorship now, would in my opinion, be a mistake. Bahai's >would put themselves at the same level as traditional beliefs, we would have >to miss a lot of interesting discussions, and it would result impossible to >set out the rules for such a censorship in a way that would be in accordance >with the teachings. It already exists and has for a very long time.... See my web site for extensive documentation.... I would say more but it would only surely be censored then. This brief note in itself will probably never see the light of day on srb.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:21 PM To: Bill Collins Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > >I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many people >in this age. There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and information is.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:48 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month I'm a little surprised by the amount of interest on my web site during the last month.... It seems to be filling a real need among Bahais and non-Bahais.... Any suggestions? I just recently added several links to the UN and other organizations interested in religious freedom and conscience and hope to add a few more.... Soon too I hope to be able to upload 15k+ of back email on alt.religion.bahai and general discussion for talk.religion.bahai. Much of it is available on dejanews.com but there's no telling how long they'll preserve it and every effort should be made to ensure it survives for study by future Bahai scholars.... I suppose other scholars might find some of it interesting too.... Well, anyway, those are at least a few things in the works, so to speak. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:48 PM Subject: 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month I'm a little surprised by the amount of interest on my web site during the last month.... It seems to be filling a real need among Bahais and non-Bahais.... Any suggestions? I just recently added several links to the UN and other organizations interested in religious freedom and conscience and hope to add a few more.... Soon too I hope to be able to upload 15k+ of back email on alt.religion.bahai and general discussion for talk.religion.bahai. Much of it is available on dejanews.com but there's no telling how long they'll preserve it and every effort should be made to ensure it survives for study by future Bahai scholars.... I suppose other scholars might find some of it interesting too.... Well, anyway, those are at least a few things in the works, so to speak. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:49 PM To: talisman Subject: Fw: 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 8:48 PM Subject: 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month >I'm a little surprised by the amount of interest on my web site >during the last month.... It seems to be filling a real need among >Bahais and non-Bahais.... > >Any suggestions? > >I just recently added several links to the UN and other organizations >interested in religious freedom and conscience and hope to >add a few more.... > >Soon too I hope to be able to upload 15k+ of back email on >alt.religion.bahai and general discussion for talk.religion.bahai. >Much of it is available on dejanews.com but there's no telling >how long they'll preserve it and every effort should be made >to ensure it survives for study by future Bahai scholars.... > >I suppose other scholars might find some of it interesting too.... > >Well, anyway, those are at least a few things in the works, >so to speak. > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 7:17 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored: 6-8-98 -----Original Message----- From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:03 AM Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >At the present time, it is the decision of the moderators of soc-religion-bahai >not to include your URL signature. This decision has been made after much >discussion and after having visited the site. While, as you state, you are not >*responsible* for the contents of what gets posted to the two lists, or what >others might say in the links included in your site, they do *in fact* contain >materials or pointers to known Covenant Breakers. This is not allowable within >the charter of soc-religion-bahai. Not one of the moderators of srb is >insinuating anything, nor are we casting judgment on you. You are not being >singled out, as there have been many other submissions which have been declined >for similar reasons. > >Your reference to the fact that there are any number of links that exist out >there on the Internet that lead to CB material is a point well taken. However, >please keep in mind that the charter of srb, and by default, the moderators, >will make every effort to not publish any materials or possible links to >those materials. In deleting your signature file, Mr. Hyman was, in fact, >following the charter of srb, and not attempting to forge anything. That is his >responsibility as a moderator. In future, we will, rather than deleting the sig >file, return the submission to you unposted with the request that you edit it >yourself. Mr. Hyman was simply trying to follow the charter while at the same >time getting your submission posted in a timely fashion. > >Please consider that any future submissions from you will not be posted if they >contain the sig file. If you wish to include it, then we will return them to you >for editing. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > >Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 7:24 PM >Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > > >Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many >people >>in this age. > >There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate >in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine >and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on >my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais >to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and >information is.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 7:17 AM Subject: SRB censored: 6-8-98 -----Original Message----- From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:03 AM Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >At the present time, it is the decision of the moderators of soc-religion-bahai >not to include your URL signature. This decision has been made after much >discussion and after having visited the site. While, as you state, you are not >*responsible* for the contents of what gets posted to the two lists, or what >others might say in the links included in your site, they do *in fact* contain >materials or pointers to known Covenant Breakers. This is not allowable within >the charter of soc-religion-bahai. Not one of the moderators of srb is >insinuating anything, nor are we casting judgment on you. You are not being >singled out, as there have been many other submissions which have been declined >for similar reasons. > >Your reference to the fact that there are any number of links that exist out >there on the Internet that lead to CB material is a point well taken. However, >please keep in mind that the charter of srb, and by default, the moderators, >will make every effort to not publish any materials or possible links to >those materials. In deleting your signature file, Mr. Hyman was, in fact, >following the charter of srb, and not attempting to forge anything. That is his >responsibility as a moderator. In future, we will, rather than deleting the sig >file, return the submission to you unposted with the request that you edit it >yourself. Mr. Hyman was simply trying to follow the charter while at the same >time getting your submission posted in a timely fashion. > >Please consider that any future submissions from you will not be posted if they >contain the sig file. If you wish to include it, then we will return them to you >for editing. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > >Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 7:24 PM >Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > > >Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many >people >>in this age. > >There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate >in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine >and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on >my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais >to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and >information is.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 7:18 AM To: talisman Subject: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) fyi -----Original Message----- From: S. Michele Smith To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: Baha'i SRB Moderators Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 2:03 AM Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) >Dear Mr. Glaysher, > >At the present time, it is the decision of the moderators of soc-religion-bahai >not to include your URL signature. This decision has been made after much >discussion and after having visited the site. While, as you state, you are not >*responsible* for the contents of what gets posted to the two lists, or what >others might say in the links included in your site, they do *in fact* contain >materials or pointers to known Covenant Breakers. This is not allowable within >the charter of soc-religion-bahai. Not one of the moderators of srb is >insinuating anything, nor are we casting judgment on you. You are not being >singled out, as there have been many other submissions which have been declined >for similar reasons. > >Your reference to the fact that there are any number of links that exist out >there on the Internet that lead to CB material is a point well taken. However, >please keep in mind that the charter of srb, and by default, the moderators, >will make every effort to not publish any materials or possible links to >those materials. In deleting your signature file, Mr. Hyman was, in fact, >following the charter of srb, and not attempting to forge anything. That is his >responsibility as a moderator. In future, we will, rather than deleting the sig >file, return the submission to you unposted with the request that you edit it >yourself. Mr. Hyman was simply trying to follow the charter while at the same >time getting your submission posted in a timely fashion. > >Please consider that any future submissions from you will not be posted if they >contain the sig file. If you wish to include it, then we will return them to you >for editing. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >soc-religion-bahai > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.isc.org > >Date: Sunday, June 07, 1998 7:24 PM >Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > > >Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... >> >>I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many >people >>in this age. > >There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate >in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine >and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on >my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais >to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and >information is.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] censored -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] censored >LOVE IS THE BONDING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE > >Dear Friends - > >I don't understand why so many of us keep posting to srb on topics outside >their charter and self declared censorship - why don't we leave them alone >to do what they want [according to thier charter] since there are many >other lists to post to? Why should we be surprised about the censorship >when that is what they say they will do? Makelist is having some >interesting topics, why not build that up and forget about whay srb is >doing. Remember srb has the blessings and guidance of the Counsellor's and >the House. If it is fundamental in character then that is what it is and it >isn't up to us to attack it as it makes no bones about the policies it uses >to reject posts. Many of my posts have been rejected because I have used >capital letters to emphasise what I am saying in the middle of other's >texts. I have had other rejections from srb because the moderators have >said "esperanto" has already been spoken about, even though a person from >Russia asked about it and my response was in a Baha'i context. I have had >other rejections because, IMO, the moderators were unable to deal with the >reality of the discussion and their personal prejudices, {being only >humans}, interfeared with their posting my informative post. I have even >had one moderator send me abusive comments with rude language. But, heh, >that is the limitations of srb - so why keep attacking them for what they >are - just do your own thing. Rgarads, Star* > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:07 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? In my opinion, Juan owes Susan Maneck an apology for his unkind words on her a week or two ago.... Why have none of you remarked on that? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:12 AM Subject: fw [bahai-faith] Softening the rhetoric -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 11:49 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Softening the rhetoric >According to Frederick Glaysher: >> >> They're passages from the writings he quoted in an >> attempt to change the subject from Hyman's forging >> my sig file > >Roger is right; forging implies his writing something and claiming >you wrote it. Instead, Hyman edited your sig file. It was still >arbitrary, unfounded in policy, and done without consulting you. >(As was his rejection of my post about `Abdu'l Baha's predictions >of all religions being unified in this century, which he >apparently just threw away. Perhaps because I'd proven him wrong >in having denied such a passage exists.) Hyman is clearly a real >detriment as srb moderator. Quite unlike any others I've ever >dealt with. But forgery is an excessive charge. > > to backbiting and criticism, from Bud Polk's >> threatening me, to it being all my fault.... > >Again, you're making more of this than what happened. He didn't >outright threaten you; his message was harassment, in my book, >with an *implicit* threat at best. >> >Sometimes, Fred, I think your excessive rhetoric plays right into >the hands of Baha'i defenders of the status quo (even defenders >of Hyman and Polk in these indefensible instances.) If you would >just calmly describe what they did, rather than editorialize >about it, I think it would have more persuasive power. > >At other times, I wonder if any critic of destructive behavior by >any Baha'i (e.g. the Danesh incident in Canada, described by Cole >and Scholl in various emails) will ever get the least bit of >credence from any other Baha'i. Those who don't want to hear bad news >will always blame the messenger rather than attend to the >problem. > >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:28 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech >According to George & Marlena: >> >> IMHO: >> I have seen a lot on the Net (and here) about censorship and free speech. I >> have also had some personal dealings with censorship in some newsgroups. I >> question, though, if any freedoms are in question here. > >How so? For example, my own freedom to raise a question about a >prophecy of `Abdu'l Baha in a way that cannot conceivably be seen >as rude, hostile, etc. or violating any newsgroup rules. > > I see no reason why >> everyone should be allowed to print anything they want, anywhere they want. > >Straw man. The fact is that no one is asking for that. Just for >consistent, fair application of the guidelines. > >> There is enough of a subject choice that a person should be able to find a >> newsgroup sympathetic with their beliefs that would allow them to freely >> vent. If I am a guest in a church of another faith, I don't bring a picnic >> lunch to the service and eat it during the sermon. > >A newsgroup is not church. I've seen a great many Eckists treat >nonmembers who raise difficult issues on alt.religion.eckankar >freak out and accuse the critics of "violating their space." But >newsgroups are *public* space, and even those groups devoted to >some religion or other are virtually always explicitly for >inquirers as well as members. > > And if I have anything to >> say about the what went on or what was said I'll ask the proper person at >> the proper time and in the proper manner. Meetings in real life follow rules >> I see no difference online. > >Some differences: people don't conduct religious ceremonies in >newsgroups or lists that could be disrupted by "inappropriate" >questions or comments. Believers who discuss their faith on a >public forum are inviting public visibility and response, rather >as if Baha'is took over public parks for their firesides or >deepenings. Srb has a responsibility to the non-Baha'i public, >by virtue of being a public newsgroup. That's not equally true >of a private list, where behavior like that of Bill Hyman would be >less reprehensible. > >If you come into my local study group meeting and start asking >skeptical questions in an unfriendly tone about Edgar Cayce, or >criticizing the ARE, you'll probably get a chilly reception. If you >do the same on a public newsgroup, say talk.religion.newage, no one >could accuse you of invading private space. Baha'is generally >are too control-oriented when it comes to expression of >independent ideas or dissent, and cyberspace is the Waterloo for >such attitudes. It's a new world order and censorship is part of >the old. > >Cheers, >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:14 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? But since you didn't vote yes last time so it's very hard to trust you.... Hidden agendas and double standards are the very stuff of politics.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 1:55 PM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? > >Frederick: > >Look, we're on the same side and I admire you. The hardliners will only >delight if we fight. I would like to point out in the interests of >fairness that I handled the Schuette thing privately and no one knew >anything about it. And maybe you misunderstood me, but I wasn't asking for >a 'public' apology, though that you made one only made you look like a >statesman. > >Let's try to be allies, o.k.? In a relationship of allies, everyone >understands that sometimes you may be forced to rule against an ally for >abstract reasons of principle. This happened all the time between France >and the U.S. during the Cold War, even though they were allies. Doesn't >mean I don't have very warm feelings toward you and what you have >accomplished. > > >cheers Juan > > > >At 08:07 AM 6/8/98 -0400, you wrote: >>In my opinion, Juan owes Susan Maneck an apology >>for his unkind words on her a week or two ago.... >> >>Why have none of you remarked on that? >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:28 AM To: R Wade Schuette Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? -----Original Message----- From: R Wade Schuette To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: talisman Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:01 AM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? >>Fred G. has asserted in many posts that the Soc.Religion.Bahai list >is moderated with a strong filter that blocks many of his messages, >and has responded with setting up his own list and web pages. OK, >that said, can we stop saying it and move on to what the original >point was, two years ago? I am not the only person to have say so.... You seem to wish to ignore that reality and withdraw into a dream world of peace and unity built on distortion and suppression.... It can't happen.... And won't work, now or ever.... > >Even with it's imperfections, can the Baha'i process be useful for >addressing, say, the battle between Hindus and Moslems before some >Indian subcontinent nations break out in nuclear warfare? Is there >a better alternative? What can be done, constructively, to >stop focusing entirely on what doesn't work and to exploit (in a >good sense) what DOES work to accomplish actually useful work >in peace-making and peace-bringing? Let deeds not words be your adorning.... > >I feel bad that Fred feels blocked, but, there are more important >problems in the world that need addressing, and interpersonal >attacks seem to me to simply hinder and distract the more important >processes of reaching agreement and consensus on the things we >DO agree with each other on. (syntax notwithstanding.) "Feels"? Oh, please, with Bill Hyman's latest edict, that's just too much.... > >If Fred's alternative list, or Talisman, has not been effective >at having appropriate input into the evolution of the Baha'i Faith, >then perhaps questions of strategy and tactics could be addressed. Hyman's attack is obviously calculated to minimize an influence that he and other such Bahais believe has made an impact.... FEAR is how I read his desperate attempt to censor me.... I'll be posting a message in a moment from him that shows how long he's been harboring such actions.... >What are the precursors of having an impact. How does one get there >from here? How does one get heard amid all the noise? Why doesn't >what's been tried in the past work very well, and what could be >re-examined and done differently? Those seem like the right questions >to ask that could, conceivably, lead to progress. They're not the right questions at all.... They ignore how seriously distorted "moderating" has been at srb.... > >Can at least SOME of the bandwidth discuss what's RIGHT with each >other, and on what we CAN agree with each other? Isn't the whole >point of civilized discourse to be able to reach such understandings >despite many points of differences, overlooking them, for the moment, >until a solid basis of agreement and shared assumptions and lexicon >can be achieved from which to work towards the areas of disagreement? Again, you choose to ignore unpleasant realities, blame me, etc., and want to bound off to the beautiful, glorious vision, held up by lies, distortions, half truths, subversion, intrigue, dishonesty, backballing tactics, etc.... Evil must be confronted for it to begin to go away.... for a brief moment at least.... or diminish.... > >Wade Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship Note that this was posted by the then future and now present soc.religion.bahai moderator back last August 1997: Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 From: FG Date: 1997/07/08 Message-ID: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,so c.culture.iranian [More Headers][Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai] Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > postings. Bill Hyman hymanfam@samoatelco.com No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:42 AM Subject: Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship Note that this was posted by the then future and now present soc.religion.bahai moderator back last August 1997: Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 From: FG Date: 1997/07/08 Message-ID: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,so c.culture.iranian [More Headers][Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai] Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > postings. Bill Hyman hymanfam@samoatelco.com No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:44 AM To: talisman Subject: Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship Note that this was posted by the then future and now present srb moderator last August 1997: Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 From: FG Date: 1997/07/08 Message-ID: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,so c.culture.iranian [More Headers][Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai] Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: > > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future > postings. Bill Hyman hymanfam@samoatelco.com No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." -- Frederick Glaysher UseNet: alt.religion.bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:49 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month -----Original Message----- From: Harold Shinsato To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] 1200+ hits: on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" in 1 month >Frederick, > >I'm a newcomer to the Baha'i faith. > >I've been reading your distribution list, about the censorship in the >Baha'i Faith that is accepted by the House. And I can't help but wonder if >there's something amiss in the state of Denmark. > >The messages from Juan Cole are particularly condemning. What is the state >of the Covenant? I've heard rumors that the writings predict a tribulation >would come over the Baha'i Faith, and it certainly seems that is what is >going on. > >How could the House of Justice in anyway shape or form condone a >restriction of independent spiritual investigation? I mean, to restrict a >message because some of the words were in all capitals? To restrict a >message about Esperanto simply because someone had written something about >it before, even though the person was answering an inquiry. > >There appears to be a near impregnable case for allowing Women on the UHJ. >It's very suspicious that the Talisman list would be shut down because free >inquiry demonstrated this to be so. From Juan Cole's description, >Abdu'l-Baha's disallowing of women on the UHJ was to address the >contingencies of the time. If anything, it is extremely embarrassing in >this day and age that women would not be allowed on the UHJ. What the heck >is going on? > >It seems like there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith, or this would >have been ironed out long ago. And I think this is why there is so much >interest in your website. If there is an oppression over the Baha'i Faith, >then the next step is to see if the interest in your website doesn't cause >you to be branded a Covenant Breaker if you don't shut down the website or >sanitize its content. If there isn't an oppression, then SRB should be >opened up, and some dynamic free inquiry would be allowed, as the writings >demand! > >Thank you for doing what you are doing. > > Harold Shinsato > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >> I'm a little surprised by the amount of interest on my web site >> during the last month.... It seems to be filling a real need among >> Bahais and non-Bahais.... >> >> Any suggestions? >> >> I just recently added several links to the UN and other organizations >> interested in religious freedom and conscience and hope to >> add a few more.... >> >> Soon too I hope to be able to upload 15k+ of back email on >> alt.religion.bahai and general discussion for talk.religion.bahai. >> Much of it is available on dejanews.com but there's no telling >> how long they'll preserve it and every effort should be made >> to ensure it survives for study by future Bahai scholars.... >> >> I suppose other scholars might find some of it interesting too.... >> >> Well, anyway, those are at least a few things in the works, >> so to speak. >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> ---- >> List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> -- >> Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:53 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB censored 6-8-98 -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:19 AM Subject: Re: censorship Bounce: 1) No content which discusses the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith 2) Your web site still links to and advertises covenant breaker material. Rick > Wim Kamerbeek wrote in message <"AZfWkD.A.ftB.6BYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > > >To introduce censorship now, would in my opinion, be a mistake. Bahai's > >would put themselves at the same level as traditional beliefs, we would > have > >to miss a lot of interesting discussions, and it would result impossible to > >set out the rules for such a censorship in a way that would be in > accordance > >with the teachings. > > > It already exists and has for a very long time.... See my web site for > extensive documentation.... I would say more but it would only surely > be censored then. This brief note in itself will probably never see the > light of day on srb.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:53 AM Subject: SRB censored 6-8-98 -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:19 AM Subject: Re: censorship Bounce: 1) No content which discusses the beliefs and teachings of the Baha'i Faith 2) Your web site still links to and advertises covenant breaker material. Rick > Wim Kamerbeek wrote in message <"AZfWkD.A.ftB.6BYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > > >To introduce censorship now, would in my opinion, be a mistake. Bahai's > >would put themselves at the same level as traditional beliefs, we would > have > >to miss a lot of interesting discussions, and it would result impossible to > >set out the rules for such a censorship in a way that would be in > accordance > >with the teachings. > > > It already exists and has for a very long time.... See my web site for > extensive documentation.... I would say more but it would only surely > be censored then. This brief note in itself will probably never see the > light of day on srb.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:55 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: srb censored 6-8-98 no 2 -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:20 AM Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) Ditto > Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > > > >I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many > people > >in this age. > > There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate > in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine > and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on > my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais > to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and > information is.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:55 AM Subject: srb censored 6-8-98 no 2 -----Original Message----- From: Rick Boatright To: Frederick Glaysher Cc: srb-mods@bcca.org Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:20 AM Subject: Re: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) Ditto > Bill Collins wrote in message <"IrytsD.A.mxB.wCYe1"@bounty.bcca.org>... > > > >I continue to be amazed at the paranoia that seems to possess so many > people > >in this age. > > There's no paranoia, only observation of the way many Bahais operate > in the Bahai Faith.... Your last response here to a message of mine > and the refusal of srb moderators to post my reply, now available on > my web site, is the precisely the type of thing that leads many Bahais > to realize how controlled and contrived much discussion and > information is.... > > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:58 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Matthew Cromer Subject: Re: Censored from S.R.B 6 Jun 1998 Thanks for posting this message about your experience. I hope you understand that Bahais are not going to respond to it. The usual procedure for the hardliners is to ignore any unpleasant truth that happens along and which they cannot outright suppress.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefjj$c77$1@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >I am returning your submission to you unposted as it falls outside the >charter >of soc-religion-bahai. Mainly, you level accusations at specific >individuals, >institutions, as well as bringing up the names of other individuals and >their >experiences. This is not to say what you have stated is not true. It is, >however, outside the charter of this newsgroup to post submissions of this >nature. > >If you would care to revise your submission, leaving out specific >indiviuals and >institutions, we can reconsider posting it. > >Sinerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:27 PM >Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > > >In article <"xv2A1B.A.Y8C._02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> , >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com writes: > >Only after the individual demonstrates an unwillingness to >>abide by these few basic laws would some action be taken, such as withdrawal >>of administrative privileges. The aim is always to lovingly assist that >>person to more closely align him/herself with the Laws of God. > > > > >Except that we are talking about people who choose to _leave_ the Baha'i >religion, _then_ being investigated, not someone who chooses to stay and >believes in and chooses to abide by the institutions. > >You are referring to investigations of behavior of an individual >identifying himself as a Baha'i. > > > >>> In article <"6a5-SC.A.huF.Pgub1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >>> compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>> >I believe National >>> >investigates everyone who wants to withdraw from the Faith. We recently >>> had >>> >a woman resign from our spiritual assembly to lead a lesbian lifestyle and >>> >National needed confirmation from members of the Assembly that it was not a >>> >frivolous or spite induced resignation. > >Here is the original quote--you can see that it refers to people who tell >the National Baha'i Assembly they are not Baha'is anymore, then being >"investigated" in some manner to "confirm" that the resignation was not >"frivolous or spite-induced". > >I withdrew from the Baha'i faith myself in March timeframe of 1994, and >was harassed by the Local Baha'i Assembly of Chapel Hill, NC, who refused >to recognise my statement of withdrawal. > >I decided to get married and my mentally-disturbed mother withdrew >consent. I decided that the teachings no longer made sense--my doubts >turned into disbelief in the whole package. I still believe in many >individual truths I found in the Faith but not in the entire package as >an entire truth which must be believed in every jot and tittle, and from >which all deviation is naught but error. > > >It was a difficult time for me, but the fact that the Chapel Hill (NC) >Baha'i Assembly continued to harass me, sending me carbon copies of mail >sent to the National Assembly complaining about my "immoral" behavior >with regards to my wife, and complaining about my getting married, and >petitioned to have my voting rights removed after I clearly mailed them >demanding they remove my names from the rolls, left a bad taste in my >mouth. > >So I have first hand knowlege of what kinds of "investigation" go on and >if I had not frankly written both the National Assembly and the Chapel >Hill Baha'i Assembly stating my withdrawal in the clearest terms and >stating my demand that they accept my withdrawal at face value, I am >certain I would have had my "voting rights" removed as a non-Baha'i. I >guess the symbolic punishment of the "heretic", the desire to inflict >retribution, runs deep in some Baha'is. > >I hope my experience was an aberration, and that Baha'is in general >desire to maintain their image of acceptance with the non-Baha'i >community and not to persecute their "apostates", but after hearing about >more "investigations" of everyone who withdraws I am finding it easy to >believe otherwise. > >Certainly the entire episode with Juan Cole, the Waldbridges, and the >Talisman list would seem to indicate a religious organization intent on >thought-control, suppression of dissent, non-freedom of thought, >conformity, and spiritual decay. Although my experience in the faith was >generally very positive and my encounters with this kind of fanaticism >were few in number, perhaps that is no longer the case in these days of >turmoil before the advent of the millenium. Perhaps the Baha'is whose >lives are dominated by the desire to control and command the thoughts and >beliefs of others have gained ascendency and now rule the roost. >Certainly the rampant censorship of numerous Baha'is on the internet by >the Baha'i organization which has been reported would indicate such a sad >trend. In a world of increasing openness and a place where everyone can >now find a voice on the internet, the Baha'is have chosen to place >themselves with such as the North Koreas of the world, with only >officially sanctioned viewpoints allowed to speak. > >I now find myself in the sad spectacle of seeing a faith that once taught >so much love and understanding and compassion becoming now a muzzle >stuffed in the mouths of those some would care not to hear, and now have >the power to silence through their eccleastical offices. > > > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:58 AM Subject: Re: Censored from S.R.B 6 Jun 1998 Thanks for posting this message about your experience. I hope you understand that Bahais are not going to respond to it. The usual procedure for the hardliners is to ignore any unpleasant truth that happens along and which they cannot outright suppress.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefjj$c77$1@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >I am returning your submission to you unposted as it falls outside the >charter >of soc-religion-bahai. Mainly, you level accusations at specific >individuals, >institutions, as well as bringing up the names of other individuals and >their >experiences. This is not to say what you have stated is not true. It is, >however, outside the charter of this newsgroup to post submissions of this >nature. > >If you would care to revise your submission, leaving out specific >indiviuals and >institutions, we can reconsider posting it. > >Sinerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:27 PM >Subject: Re: Leaving Faith > > >In article <"xv2A1B.A.Y8C._02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> , >rlittle33@my-dejanews.com writes: > >Only after the individual demonstrates an unwillingness to >>abide by these few basic laws would some action be taken, such as withdrawal >>of administrative privileges. The aim is always to lovingly assist that >>person to more closely align him/herself with the Laws of God. > > > > >Except that we are talking about people who choose to _leave_ the Baha'i >religion, _then_ being investigated, not someone who chooses to stay and >believes in and chooses to abide by the institutions. > >You are referring to investigations of behavior of an individual >identifying himself as a Baha'i. > > > >>> In article <"6a5-SC.A.huF.Pgub1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >>> compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>> >I believe National >>> >investigates everyone who wants to withdraw from the Faith. We recently >>> had >>> >a woman resign from our spiritual assembly to lead a lesbian lifestyle and >>> >National needed confirmation from members of the Assembly that it was not a >>> >frivolous or spite induced resignation. > >Here is the original quote--you can see that it refers to people who tell >the National Baha'i Assembly they are not Baha'is anymore, then being >"investigated" in some manner to "confirm" that the resignation was not >"frivolous or spite-induced". > >I withdrew from the Baha'i faith myself in March timeframe of 1994, and >was harassed by the Local Baha'i Assembly of Chapel Hill, NC, who refused >to recognise my statement of withdrawal. > >I decided to get married and my mentally-disturbed mother withdrew >consent. I decided that the teachings no longer made sense--my doubts >turned into disbelief in the whole package. I still believe in many >individual truths I found in the Faith but not in the entire package as >an entire truth which must be believed in every jot and tittle, and from >which all deviation is naught but error. > > >It was a difficult time for me, but the fact that the Chapel Hill (NC) >Baha'i Assembly continued to harass me, sending me carbon copies of mail >sent to the National Assembly complaining about my "immoral" behavior >with regards to my wife, and complaining about my getting married, and >petitioned to have my voting rights removed after I clearly mailed them >demanding they remove my names from the rolls, left a bad taste in my >mouth. > >So I have first hand knowlege of what kinds of "investigation" go on and >if I had not frankly written both the National Assembly and the Chapel >Hill Baha'i Assembly stating my withdrawal in the clearest terms and >stating my demand that they accept my withdrawal at face value, I am >certain I would have had my "voting rights" removed as a non-Baha'i. I >guess the symbolic punishment of the "heretic", the desire to inflict >retribution, runs deep in some Baha'is. > >I hope my experience was an aberration, and that Baha'is in general >desire to maintain their image of acceptance with the non-Baha'i >community and not to persecute their "apostates", but after hearing about >more "investigations" of everyone who withdraws I am finding it easy to >believe otherwise. > >Certainly the entire episode with Juan Cole, the Waldbridges, and the >Talisman list would seem to indicate a religious organization intent on >thought-control, suppression of dissent, non-freedom of thought, >conformity, and spiritual decay. Although my experience in the faith was >generally very positive and my encounters with this kind of fanaticism >were few in number, perhaps that is no longer the case in these days of >turmoil before the advent of the millenium. Perhaps the Baha'is whose >lives are dominated by the desire to control and command the thoughts and >beliefs of others have gained ascendency and now rule the roost. >Certainly the rampant censorship of numerous Baha'is on the internet by >the Baha'i organization which has been reported would indicate such a sad >trend. In a world of increasing openness and a place where everyone can >now find a voice on the internet, the Baha'is have chosen to place >themselves with such as the North Koreas of the world, with only >officially sanctioned viewpoints allowed to speak. > >I now find myself in the sad spectacle of seeing a faith that once taught >so much love and understanding and compassion becoming now a muzzle >stuffed in the mouths of those some would care not to hear, and now have >the power to silence through their eccleastical offices. > > > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:02 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com; Matthew Cromer Subject: Re: censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 This is the way soc.religion.bahai always operates. They fabricate some excuse for shunting off what they can't face.... No Bahai content, doesn't meet the "charter," hurting someone's delicate feelings, "tone," etc.... Their latest is that my sig file points to covenant breaker sites.... What a horrible world such narrow-minded Bahais would create if they were ever given the chance.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefl1$c77$2@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >Thank you for your submission. I am returning it to you unposted as it >appears >to be more of a personal comment and does not elaborate on the current >discussion nor does it have any link to the Baha'i Faith, which leaves it >outside the charter of srb. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: why choose bahai faith? > > >In article <"kSDVmC.A._6C.N02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>The trouble I have is that there are so few advantages now days offered by >>the Faith. Those of us who grew up Baha'i in my day had some wonderful >>examples to try to live up to. But these days the Baha'i pool has, it seems >>to me, been diluted. I can't go to a Baha'i meeting any more and pick out >>anyone at random and say I want my children to be like them. > >If you look around you and all you see are people you don't admire and >respect, perhaps you are in the wrong place. > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: Re: censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 This is the way soc.religion.bahai always operates. They fabricate some excuse for shunting off what they can't face.... No Bahai content, doesn't meet the "charter," hurting someone's delicate feelings, "tone," etc.... Their latest is that my sig file points to covenant breaker sites.... What a horrible world such narrow-minded Bahais would create if they were ever given the chance.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefl1$c77$2@camel18.mindspring.com>... >Dear Mr. Cromer, > >Thank you for your submission. I am returning it to you unposted as it >appears >to be more of a personal comment and does not elaborate on the current >discussion nor does it have any link to the Baha'i Faith, which leaves it >outside the charter of srb. > >Sincerely, >S. Michele Smith >co-moderator >srb >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Cromer >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net > >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:41 PM >Subject: Re: why choose bahai faith? > > >In article <"kSDVmC.A._6C.N02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >compx2k@javanet.com writes: >>The trouble I have is that there are so few advantages now days offered by >>the Faith. Those of us who grew up Baha'i in my day had some wonderful >>examples to try to live up to. But these days the Baha'i pool has, it seems >>to me, been diluted. I can't go to a Baha'i meeting any more and pick out >>anyone at random and say I want my children to be like them. > >If you look around you and all you see are people you don't admire and >respect, perhaps you are in the wrong place. > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:05 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Searching for a quote The passage has the word "island" or "isle" in it if I'm not mistaken. You might try a search program to see what turns up. I've read it in many compilations, I believe. -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 11:45 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Searching for a quote >I read many years ago a quote from Baha'u'llah >in which he says that if Baha'is don't live up >to ... (very hazy on exactly what it was)... >that God would raise another people in their >stead. But now I can't find it. Does anyone >have any ideas? I've searched all the obvious >books. > >-- >Ron House > house@usq.edu.au >An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine, but >because people refuse to see it. -- James Michener, "Space" >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:13 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Ad hominem attacks? fyi -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Cromer To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? >>Fred G. has asserted in many posts that the Soc.Religion.Bahai list >>is moderated with a strong filter that blocks many of his messages, >>and has responded with setting up his own list and web pages. OK, >>that said, can we stop saying it and move on to what the original >>point was, two years ago? >> >. . . > > >> >>I feel bad that Fred feels blocked, but, there are more important >>problems in the world that need addressing, and interpersonal >>attacks seem to me to simply hinder and distract the more important >>processes of reaching agreement and consensus on the things we >>DO agree with each other on. (syntax notwithstanding.) >> > >Fred is of course, not the only person who is censored from posting to S.R.B. > >I have had numerous posts of mine rejected from S.R.B. for what appears to >be no other reason except that the censors do not want my point of view >raised. > >Matthew Cromer > >Matthew Cromer >matthew_cromer@iname.com > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:13 AM Subject: fw Re: Ad hominem attacks? fyi -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Cromer To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 5:23 PM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? >>Fred G. has asserted in many posts that the Soc.Religion.Bahai list >>is moderated with a strong filter that blocks many of his messages, >>and has responded with setting up his own list and web pages. OK, >>that said, can we stop saying it and move on to what the original >>point was, two years ago? >> >. . . > > >> >>I feel bad that Fred feels blocked, but, there are more important >>problems in the world that need addressing, and interpersonal >>attacks seem to me to simply hinder and distract the more important >>processes of reaching agreement and consensus on the things we >>DO agree with each other on. (syntax notwithstanding.) >> > >Fred is of course, not the only person who is censored from posting to S.R.B. > >I have had numerous posts of mine rejected from S.R.B. for what appears to >be no other reason except that the censors do not want my point of view >raised. > >Matthew Cromer > >Matthew Cromer >matthew_cromer@iname.com > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:26 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) I've come to that conclusion too, long ago, which is why I've put the huge amount of time and energy into creating alternatives and the web site. I've recently added several links to religious freedom and liberty sites. Most of the free speech ones are not to my taste.... I'll look on the ones you mention below. If anything else useful occurs to you, please let me know. Incidentally, my web site is already on all of the major search engines.... It comes up for instance along side hits dealing with religious freedom in Russia... Love the irony.... I'm worried Hyman's trying to set me up to be declared a covenant breaker at any moment. How do you read it? Fred -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > >Dear Frederick: > >As usual, this decision to delete your sig line by SRB is absolutely >outrageous. They are attempting to keep all the readers of SRB throughout >the world from knowing about your Web page because they don't like some of >the links!! I wonder if it is possible to work with freedom-friendly Net >organizations to change the situation from the outside. It sure as hell >ain't going to change from the inside. > >the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy > and Technology, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch are only a > few whose goals include freedom of expression on the entire > Internet and Usenet. > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:28 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bahai Discuss Archive added to "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've added an archive of all of the discussion that took place on the private mailing list Bahai Discuss last fall regarding the second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, prior to the BCCA's depriving me of my right of access to its lists. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:28 AM Subject: Bahai Discuss Archive added to "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've added an archive of all of the discussion that took place on the private mailing list Bahai Discuss last fall regarding the second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, prior to the BCCA's depriving me of my right of access to its lists. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:32 AM To: talisman Subject: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Some of you may be interested to know that I've added an archive of all of the discussion that took place on the mailing list Bahai Discuss last fall regarding the second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, prior to the BCCA's depriving me of my right of access to its lists. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 10:46 AM Subject: trb & arb archives now on my web site I've added several megabytes of past messages about talk.religion.bahai from the fall of 1996 through early September of 1997 on my web site. Please feel free to download them and archive them yourself for future Bahai scholars interested in the Writings on free speech and religious conscience. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:20 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? Juan, I respect your scholarship and courage in standing up to the literalists. I do believe you employ a double standard in regard to hurting people's feelings, though I concede I've done it more often than you have and with more vigor.... You don't stick to the rules rigorously.... And you have at times very much used talisman and h-bahai for your own purposes to such an extent that I certainly don't trust you.... It seems to me you're quite typical of many academics who want and can only flourish in a tightly controlled little classroom.... Sorry, but this is the way it seems to me. What you said about Maneck was worse by far than anything I intimated to Wade.... Hope I haven't hurt your feelings.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 3:33 PM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? > >Dear Frederick: > >I don't have any hidden agenda. I am a very straightfoward person, and >that is what gets me in trouble. I admire your values and the way you have >fought for them, and I am glad to help you. > >On the other hand, I have already told you frankly that I think you have a >problem with needing gratuitously to insult your correspondents, even >correspondents who are generally sympathetic to you, and I think probably >that cyberspace has exacerbated it. I do not tell you this to disparage >you, but to urge you to recognize the problem and seek to resolve it, since >it will be difficult for you to accomplish the things you wish to do unless >you overcome it. > >So, whenever a Talisman *subscriber* comes to me and can demonstrate that >you have called them names or whatever, I will be forced to side with them. > If someone comes to me complaining that you bested them in debate, or are >a secret covenant breaker, or hurt their feelings by your interpretation of >the Baha'i scriptures, then I will tell them to lump it. > >That is, you have my full support except when you tell someone on our list >their grandma wears army boots. Those are my rules, and you can depend on >me to stick to them rigorously. > >Does this help with trust? I hope so, it is all I can do or say. > >cheers Juan > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:22 AM Subject: fw Re: Censorship vs Freespeech -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena To: bahai faith Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 4:22 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech > >Frederick Glaysher wrote in message <6lgkhl$90u@news3.newsguy.com>... >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: K. Paul Johnson >>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 2:28 PM >>Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech >> >> >>>According to George & Marlena: >>>> >>>> IMHO: >>>> I have seen a lot on the Net (and here) about censorship and free >speech. >>I >>>> have also had some personal dealings with censorship in some newsgroups. >>I >>>> question, though, if any freedoms are in question here. >>> >>>How so? For example, my own freedom to raise a question about a >>>prophecy of `Abdu'l Baha in a way that cannot conceivably be seen >>>as rude, hostile, etc. or violating any newsgroup rules. >>> >>> I see no reason why >>>> everyone should be allowed to print anything they want, anywhere they >>want. >>> >>>Straw man. The fact is that no one is asking for that. Just for >>>consistent, fair application of the guidelines. > > >Dear Paul, >It seems to me, based on what you have just written(above), that unlimited >freedom to write anything you want IS exactly what you want. >Insulting and demeaning people by calling them names is not what I would >call freedom, but an abuse of freedom. And that kind of abuse is what I am >against. >PostOn. >George > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:33 AM To: Star Saffa Subject: Re: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Just follow my web site links to the bahai-discuss archive. The first message has its subscription address. I don't know off-hand either subscription address. Send talisman an email. They should add you. Good luck! -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: fglaysh@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 2:31 AM Subject: Fw: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >LOVE IS THE BONDING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE > >To: Mr. Frederick G.(how do you wish to be addressed?) > >Will you please help me get subscribed to disscuss and talisman (I tried >unsuccessfully) as I would like to read some of the info you have >mentioned. Thank you for your assistance. Star* Saffa >---------- >> From: FG >> To: talisman >> Subject: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >Conscience" >> Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 8:32 PM >> >> Some of you may be interested to know that >> I've added an archive of all of the discussion that took place on >> the mailing list Bahai Discuss last fall regarding the >> second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, prior to the BCCA's >> depriving me of my right of access to its lists. >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:36 AM Subject: fw Fw: [bahai-faith] censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 -----Original Message----- From: Star Saffa To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 2:31 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 >LOVE IS THE BONDING FORCE OF THE UNIVERSE > >I think from what you wrote here you are ignoring that srb is designed to >be a teaching newsgroup ONLY in which they do not want to discuss any >attitudes, experiences, or feelings that do not put on the "happy family >face". I believe they believe the *mask* must be preserved at all costs. > > I also believe that it is difficult for moderators to stay detached from >their personal tendencies towards power. Many people, IMO, that have had to >go through unfair situations and finally get a piece of the pie (power) >exercise their power as a means of preserving their hard won positions from >those in the ranks who might pose any threat. I believe it is a spiritual >test not to misuse that power once it is gained as we have seen time and >again in the old world order. This process of which I speak is an English >system (ingrained culturally) and the people doing it, don't even recognize >what they are doing because it is so natural.. I was born an American and >have lived in English countries for over 15 years and as an American >(American have unspiritual cultural handicapps too - so I'm only making an >observation to help us all grow). However, as an American, this clawing >your way to power being in the Faith was shocking to me. I pray that this >old world order behaviour will be purged from the Faith one day, >unfortunately it is well in place. I can understand American Baha'is being >shocked and trying to fight against it - but heh >- it is so well ingrained at this point in many areas that one is waisting >their time yelling and screaming about something that has become normal >standard operation to many. I speak from painful experience and >ethnographic study and analysis. >Best Wishes - Star* > ---------- >> From: FG >> To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com ; Matthew Cromer > >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 >> Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:02 PM >> >> This is the way soc.religion.bahai always operates. They fabricate some >> excuse for shunting off what they can't face.... No Bahai content, >doesn't >> meet the "charter," hurting someone's delicate feelings, "tone," etc.... >> >> Their latest is that my sig file points to covenant breaker sites.... >What >> a horrible world such narrow-minded Bahais would create if they were >> ever given the chance.... >> >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> >> Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6lefl1$c77$2@camel18.mindspring.com>... >> >Dear Mr. Cromer, >> > >> >Thank you for your submission. I am returning it to you unposted as it >> >appears >> >to be more of a personal comment and does not elaborate on the current >> >discussion nor does it have any link to the Baha'i Faith, which leaves >it >> >outside the charter of srb. >> > >> >Sincerely, >> >S. Michele Smith >> >co-moderator >> >srb >> >-----Original Message----- >> >From: Matthew Cromer >> >Newsgroups: soc.religion.bahai >> >To: soc-religion-bahai@moderators.uu.net >> > >> >Date: Friday, June 05, 1998 1:41 PM >> >Subject: Re: why choose bahai faith? >> > >> > >> >In article <"kSDVmC.A._6C.N02d1"@bounty.bcca.org> Kent Johnson, >> >compx2k@javanet.com writes: >> >>The trouble I have is that there are so few advantages now days offered >by >> >>the Faith. Those of us who grew up Baha'i in my day had some wonderful >> >>examples to try to live up to. But these days the Baha'i pool has, it >> seems >> >>to me, been diluted. I can't go to a Baha'i meeting any more and pick >out >> >>anyone at random and say I want my children to be like them. >> > >> >If you look around you and all you see are people you don't admire and >> >respect, perhaps you are in the wrong place. >> > >> >Matthew Cromer >> >> >> >> ---- >> List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> -- >> Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:38 AM To: George & Marlena Subject: Re: Hard to find threads It's all a constant pain to me too.... Wish I had a solution but it seems to be the nature of Usenet. Sorry. -----Original Message----- From: George & Marlena To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:42 PM Subject: Hard to find threads Dear Fred, Since your experience and expertise with newsgroups are more developed than mine I figure you are the best person I "know" to ask about newsroom threads. Is there any rhyme or reason to the way that threads are bundled together? I find it almost impossible, as a novice in this area, to keep track of the threads. I'll make a post and, quite by accident, I find a response to that post somewhere else ( in another newsgroup). This makes it hard not only for me to see what other people think about my ideas, but also makes it hard for me to ask them questions or in other wise respond to their post on the same thread. I realize that by posting the complete message of the person we are posting to may be the solution, my server will not allow me to include more than 80% (?) of a message. Plus, as already has been said ( in the newsgroup) it is also very hard when we have to read the same message over and over, etc. Any assistance you can offer in this matter, would be greatfully accepted. George geomar@ctaz.com You may post this if you want. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:43 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Ask Dale Grider fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm Dale Grider wrote in message <357D0078.727F@bellsouth.net>... >Darrick asks, >"Can you please state your reasons (3 to 5 to begin with) why you >believer Baha'u'llah cannot be Christ returned?" > > >One at a time is probably better. More than that is likely to get into >some very lengthy responses. So I will start by offering one. It is >based upon Scripture and logic. > > Scripture portrays Jesus' Resurrection as not only literal, but >significantly PERSONAL. Thus, Jesus of Nazareth raised literally and >personally retains the identity of the Christ eternally. No different >person can claim that identity since the person of Jesus Christ of >Nazareth has and is it in eternal Resurrection. Baha'u'llah was a >different person. He thus was not the return of Jesus Christ of >Nazareth. He thus is not the return of the Christ.Read the last >assumption John makes at the end of Revelation. It speaks of the return >of Christ in terms PERSONALLY denoting Jesus Christ of Nazareth, not a >Christ spirit come again in a different person. > > >"Amen, come again <<>>" > >In Christ Jesus, >Dale ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:50 AM To: talisman Subject: fw from Poland: fw Juan Cole: censorship -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Watler Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 4:55 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Juan Cole >: To: Frederick Glaysher >: Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com ; talisman >: >: Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:58 PM >: Subject: Re: Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship > > >:> >:>Dear Miguel: >:> >:>1) While it is true that both the internet and the Baha'i faith are global >:>in nature, it is also true that a) the vast majority of internet >:>connections are in free, educated and relatively well off societies such as >:>the U.S. and b) the vast majority of literate Baha'is in the world live in >:>the U.S. and Canada. It therefore makes at least a little sense for both >:>the Baha'i faith's administration and for SRB to adopt policies that don't >:>drive off hundreds or thousands of thinking people. > >Dear Juan, > >The internet is more universal than you imagine. It may not seem that way >to you because you only see those newsgroups which are available in the >United States. Germany for example, has a whole slew of german newsgroups >all to itself. Poland as well, and Poland is not considered to be a >relatively well off society. You won't see these newsgroups though. >INTERNET is big here now. I would imagine it is the same everywhere else, >and not only in "educated and relatively well off societies". > >:>2) I was not arguing against the legitimate laws of the Baha'i religion, >:>which I respect. I was arguing that when the administration gets to the >:>point where they threaten to have university professors declared covenant >:>breakers for running an Indiana University listserv and for making >:>non-fundamentalist postings, then the administration has become not only >:>intellectually bankrupt but also repressive and corrupt in a manner that >:>betrays the basic teachings of the religion's holy figures. And when you >:>betray what you are supposed to be standing for, you guarantee your own >:>stagnation or decline. > >I am also a professor at a university, mind you, only an assistant >professor. Noone's threatened me from the Baha'is. For me the Baha'i Faith >is first and foremost a religion, and not a university subject. People who >wish to push the Faith in their own direction, will not win the love and >respect of the Baha'i institutions, and certainly not of the Baha'is. I am >quite frankly amazed at the audacity of someone who wishes to take the >reigns of the Faith in their hands. > >That is not to say that criticism is not allowed in the Faith. Criticism, >if it is constructive is not only the right but the obligation of every >Baha'i, provided that it does not undermine the authority of the Baha'i >institutions, which were, after, not man-made, but from Baha'u'llah >Himself, as you no doubt well know, seeing that you are a university >professor, and that you have written much about the Baha'i Faith. > >:>Case in point. From May 1, 1997 till May 1, 1998, the *gross* increase in >:>the number of Baha'is in the U.S. was about 1,500. Subtract withdrawals >:>(formal and informal), deaths, and persons subjected to administrative >:>sanctions, and you probably are pretty close to stagnant. This stagnation >:>is a result of the Baha'i administration not standing for what the religion >:>stands for, of it being overly controlling and overly centralized and >:>exclusivist. > >According to what I read, one cannot judge the state of the Baha'i >community through numbers only. It could be that everyone in the United >States becomes Baha'i tomorrow. So what? > >:>You get invited into the Baha'i faith being assured it believes all >:>religions are one, all humankind is one, that there should be universal >:>peace, love, and harmony, that women and men are equal, and that there >:>should be unity of science and religion. >:> >:>And then you find out that Baha'is actually are busy shunning other people, >:>are quick to put anyone within the community into the category of 'covenant >:>breaker' who has a different outlook (as Doug Martin did to me beginning in >:>the early 1980s, backbiting me behind the scenes), demand conformity, > >I'll tell you something abou Douglas Martin. As you are aware, the Faith >is relatively new in Poland. In 1993, we had a deepening on a pamphlet >written by some fundamentalist group against the Baha'i Faith. The >deepening part was to go to the writings and try to figure out where the >pamphlet was in error. I sent an email to a friend in Haifa about our >deepening, because there were some things which we couldn't figure out. An >would you believe it, we got a letter from Douglas Martin, explaining >these things. We were amazed that he took so much time for such an >insignificant community in Poland. About 2 months later he was elected to >the Universal House of Justice. > >Anyway, Baha'is do not quickly put anyone out of the community for >covenant breaking. Surely you are aware of the case with Mason Remey. It >was some time before he was put out of the Faith (he claimed to be the >second Guardian, and demanded the obedience of the Baha'is (!!) ). > >:>believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be >:>subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological >:>science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in general >:>often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, chasing people >:>out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. (How many Baha'is are there >:>in Poland, *really*?) > >Well if this is the Baha'i Faith then I don't want it either. How about >providing some references from the Baha'i writings that support what you >have written above. You are a university professor, so you have to support >what you write. Otherwise, your academia falls into question. > >There are 450 Baha'is in Poland. Poland formed its first National >Spiritual Assembly in 1992. We were allowed to teach the faith here since >1989. Just under 3 years and boom a National Spiritual Assembly. Not bad >eh? > >I have to run. Someone's phoning. > >Miguel > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 6:54 AM To: talisman Subject: fw #2 from Poland fw Juan Cole: censorship -----Original Message----- From: Miguel Watler Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 8:31 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >: -----Original Message----- >: From: Juan Cole >: To: Frederick Glaysher >: Cc: bahai-faith @ makelist.com ; talisman >: >: Date: Wednesday, June 03, 1998 2:58 PM >: Subject: Re: Fw: fw Juan Cole: censorship > >[snip...] > >OK, I'm back from doing whatever I was doing (persecuting students!). > >:>It is not just a problem of people failing to live up to their scriptural >:>values, as with most religions. It is a problem of people being committed >:>to the diametric opposite of their scriptural values. A child could >:>formulate it. It is a problem of people being mean when they were >:>commanded to be nice. It is a problem of people being narrow and exclusive >:>when they were commanded to be universal and inclusive. And the meanest of >:>all are people like Doug Martin and Farzam Arbab, who now control the >:>levers of power by virtue of having clawed their way on to the House. > >I know a little bit about these people. I used to fix their computers in >Haifa for one year. Now, if someone is interested in accumulating power >for oneself, money etc... one usually does not join a minority religion >like the Baha'i Faith, become active and look for it there. Dr Arbab was a >professor like yourself, in the United States I believe. He left his cushy >job to go pioneering in Latin America. Isn't that strange? It already >does not sound like a power mongering individual. Then he was called to >Haifa to serve as a member of the International Teaching Center. I am >lucky that I am such a simple Baha'i living a simple life. I would not >want to be called to Haifa. I went when I wanted, fixed the computers, >left when I wanted (regardless of whether there was someone to replace >me or not, I didn't care, nor did I have to). > >If you wish to criticize the Faith for being cultish, you could do so by >referring to the lack of freedom that those members of the Universal House >of Justice or the International Teaching Center in Haifa have. I do >whatever I want. It is not the same for Dr Arbab or Douglas Martin. They >have to be there. They've left their "well-off societies" to serve an as >yet little known Faith. > >I am sorry to see that after all the studies that you have done on the >Baha'i Faith, that you have not become aware of the level of service and >humility of those who administrate the Faith, wherever they may be. All >you see is that they get to make decisions. > >Regards, >------------------------------------------------------------ >Miguel Watler >Cracow University of Technology >31-155 Cracow Poland >e-mail: pewatler@cyf-kr.edu.pl > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 7:26 AM Subject: New archives: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" I've added several megabytes of past messages about talk.religion.bahai from the fall of 1996 through early September of 1997 on my web site. Please feel free to download them and archive them yourself for future Bahai scholars interested in the Writings on free speech and religious conscience. I've also uploaded all of the bahai-discuss messages from fall 1997 regarding the second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED Matthew Cromer wrote in message <6logmo$37s$1@samsara0.mindspring.com>... >In article ><7E5C1E324C494E80.0CD84DA21B4C4F45.DAA44BB59B25097B@library-proxy.airne >s.net> John Noland, dno543@airmail.net writes: >>Nobody is forced to become a Baha'i, and nobody is forced to remain a Baha'i. > >And with the present downward trend towards censorship, denigration of >free discourse, and the like, it is no surprise that in the enlightened >countries of the world where intellectual freedom is well understood many >people are leaving the faith because of this issue and many more are >never joining at all. > > > > >The >>leadership of the Baha'i Faith is elected, they didn't seize their positions. > >I won't go into the long off-topic morass of a debate of whether or not >an "election" justifies anything. > >Suffice it to say that this elected body which advocates censorship, >which attacks free discourse, and which excommunicates all critics is >creating a credibility problem for the Baha'is in the eyes of the world. >This is the kind of religious organization we expect from the >Scientologists, not the Baha'is. > > > There are >>administrative channels to properly handle any Baha'i's concerns or complaints. > >So you say. I guess the question is what is "proper" handling. > >Yes, the Baha'i religion has avoided schism for the most part. However, >the Baha'i religion has also avoided growth, dynamism, and has >increasingly driven away its most intellectual, its most creative, and >its most dynamic members because of the issue of a refusal to allow frank >consultation of the issues, censorship, using the "covenant breaker" >threat, usually whispered behind the back, as a thought control >technique, and other sins against the developed conscience. > > >AFAIK, the >>UHJ is purely a legislative body and will never have any power to persecute people. > >Except Baha'is. Spiritual persecution is still a form of persecution in >my opinion. > >I compared the ideas of censorship to those of the totalitarians. >Obviously the totalitarians are far worse because there is no escaping >their wrath by voluntary withdrawal. However, the "virtues" of >censorship are espoused by both--a fact that ought to be acknowleged. > >In a world where free and open discourse are the watchwords of all >progress, it ought to bother people when a body advocates the exact >opposite approach as an ideal to be implemented. Especially when the >Baha'i scriptures themselves advocate honest open frank consultation. > >> >>Every Baha'i has both rights AND responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to be >>faithful to the Covenant. This includes not questioning or criticizing the decisions of >>the Universal House of Justice. The UHJ is a divinely appointed institution and is >>promised by Baha'u'llah to be guided by God and free from all error. > >I'd like to see a reference for that. > >As someone who is not a Baha'i any longer and is looking to judge >institutions by their fruits rather than by claims of infallibility, I >see some serious problems with the Baha'i leadership today. > >Unfortunately if you are a Baha'i you cannot discuss this, you are not >allowed to think for yourself, you are forced to espouse the party line. >Censorship is truth. War is Peace. > > >Basically, if a >>Baha'i questions the UHJ, then they are questioning God. > >I question God all the time and sometimes I tell God I think her >decisions stink. So far the heavens haven't been cleft asunder nor have >any lightening bolts fallen. > >I think that God is willing to work with people and listen to their >complaints, unlike the UHJ appearently. > >BTW, did you know that you are not supposed to say "UHJ", the censors >have decreed that saying "UHJ" is not properly respectful. I'd suggest >you refrain from doing so any longer before someone in an official >capacity lets you know. > > I think all Baha'is are aware of >>this and feel that the statement above from the UHJ is perfectly appropriate. > >And the myriad who do have a problem with it have, of course, left the >Baha'i religion or never joined because they don't believe in thought >control. > >> >>I don't know what motivated you to compare the UHJ to North Korea or Cuba or Nazi Germany >>(of all things). > >The comparison of those who praise censorship as having positive and >healthy results is obvious. I am only comparing the advocacy of >censorship here, and suggesting that when the only others except for the >Baha'i leadership who will stand up for a principle are the scum of the >earth, perhaps the principle is, shall me say, flawed. Not that in other >ways the leadership is equal to dictators. > > > As a Baha'i, I believe the UHJ will always act in the best interest of >>the Faith and not in the personal interests of its members. > >Of course you believe that, if you ever express doubts you risk getting >drummed right out of the Baha'i religion. > >Your entire spiritual experience which includes the Baha'i component you >have identified with absolute belief in the orthodoxy of the Baha'i >religion, as I once did. The idea that certain teachings of the Baha'i >orthodoxy are in fact wrong is unthinkable to you--it threatens >everything you value in your spiritual life and your relationship with >God. Therefore you cannot judge anything which comes to you from the UHJ >on its merits--you must applaud every act in every metaphoric play, you >must cheerlead every censorship, every ruling is divinely ordained, every >critic must be cast out, every disagreement must be squelched, the >emperor is wearing fabulous luxuriant fabrics, silks, and gold, he is not >naked, even if you think you see bare flesh it is in fact that you >misunderstand, that is not really bare flesh, you just have to have more >faith and if you were a truly spiritual person you would see the >luxurious flowing purple robes. Censorship is good. Yeah. Right. > > > > I'm sorry you feel >>differently. I wish you well in resolving any bitterness you feel toward the Faith. > >I am not bitter about the faith. I am pissed off that I am not allowed >to post to S.R.B. because the "moderators" do not want my viewpoint >represented. Therefore I am essentially banned from electronic dialogue >with Baha'is because most of them do not read alt.religion.bahai. I am >saddened at the fact that thinking Baha'is are leaving in droves because >they can no longer stomach the gut-wrenching contradictions of, on the >one hand, a scripture which advocates truthfulness, honesty, and frank >consultation, and on the other hand a religious leadership which will >brook no dissent nor critical dialogue whatsoever. Baha'u'llah has a lot >to teach the world but appearantly the Baha'i leadership hasn't learned >much of it yet. > >Matthew ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:46 AM To: Miguel Watler Subject: fw Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship fw -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: talisman ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:44 PM Subject: Re: fw from Poland (was: censorship) > >Dear Miguel: > >You wrote: > >>>The internet is more universal than you imagine. > >I am, of course, well aware of how universal the internet is. What I said >was that the vast majority of its users are in literate countries and that >they tend to be educated. This is true of users in Poland and Germany. I >also said that the *Baha'is* on the internet are in terms of numbers very >predominantly in such countries and have such a profile, which is true. >There are about 60,000 adult Baha'is in the U.S. (a third of whom are >probably interested enough to actually check out the faith on the Net), and >about 13,000 adult Baha'is in Canada (ditto). [I am not counting 'mail >returns' and 'Baha'is' no one can find]. > >My point was that to run a Baha'i Usenet group with strict censorship of a >sort practiced in Communist China makes no sense, given either the profile >of the Net or the profile of the Baha'is on it. > >>>I am also a professor at a university, mind you, only an assistant >>>professor. No one's threatened me from the Baha'is. > >There are lots of things wrong with this way of looking at things. First >of all, you don't get threatened unless you are considered 'prominent' and >unless you are saying something some Rightwing Baha'i Big Cheese does not >like. Does the fact that *you* haven't been threatened prove anything at >all? The question is, is it right for *anyone* to be threatened? Even in >a dictatorship like Nigeria there are intellectuals who haven't been >threatened or jailed. Does that mean no one has, or that the regime >(R.I.P.) is not a repressive dictatorship? > >>>For me the Baha'i Faith >>>is first and foremost a religion, and not a university subject. People who >>>wish to push the Faith in their own direction, will not win the love and >>>respect of the Baha'i institutions, and certainly not of the Baha'is. I am >>>quite frankly amazed at the audacity of someone who wishes to take the >>>reins of the Faith in their hands. > >Are you suggesting that the Baha'i faith is off-limits for academic study? >Why in the world did Shoghi Effendi so strenuously encourage the study of >comparative religions, Islamics, and history in order to better understand >the faith if he did not what Baha'i professors to use those tools to write >about it? What kind of weird state of mind produces a conviction that for >a Baha'i professor to write academically about the Baha'i faith is an >attempt to 'push' it in some 'direction'? How can studying it 'push' it? >And if the status quo can't withstand it being studied, isn't there >something fishy about the status quo? > >>>That is not to say that criticism is not allowed in the Faith. Criticism, >>>if it is constructive is not only the right but the obligation of every >>>Baha'i, provided that it does not undermine the authority of the Baha'i >>>institutions, which were, after, not man-made, but from Baha'u'llah >>>Himself, as you no doubt well know, seeing that you are a university >>>professor, and that you have written much about the Baha'i Faith. > >Criticism of administrators or administrative actions is strictly >prohibited in the Baha'i faith. It may be voiced only at Baha'i-only >meetings such as Feast, where it can be quietly buried, or in letters to >Baha'i administrators, who can refuse to be responsive. 'Prominent' public >critics are ruthlessly silenced with threats of being sanctioned or >shunned. There is a Party Line in this administrative dictatorship, and >everyone is expected to toe it Or Else. > >Compare that situation to 'liberal' politics, of which contemporary Baha'is >are so disdainful. President Clinton is the most powerful man in the >world. But I can write an op-ed piece for a major newspaper and publish it >tomorrow publicly criticizing his Middle East policy. He can't and won't >punish me for doing so. But your supposedly humble and nice Baha'i >administrators would come down on a Baha'i who did the equivalent thing to >them like a ton of bricks, have him ostracized, and engage in a global >campaign of backbiting against him. So who is better, morally flawed >Clinton, or the Baha'i tinpot dictators who are so sanctimonious about >their piety? And by the way, the society `Abdu'l-Baha envisages in Secret >of Divine Civilization looks a lot more 'liberal' than current 'Baha'i' >practice. > >>>Anyway, Baha'is do not quickly put anyone out of the community for >>>covenant breaking. > >This is a false cover story, Miguel. In fact, Baha'is are routinely >accused of covenant breaking by other Baha'is, over mere differences of >opinion, in ways that can ruin their reputations. Auxiliary Board members >and Counselors routinely spread false rumors about people they don't like >as being infirm in the covenant. They call Baha'is of whose views they >disapprove to private meetings for interrogations and intimate to them that >if they don't fall silent they will be declared covenant breakers. The >Baha'is are so terrified as a result that they do just fall silent, and you >never hear about the bullying. In late '96 in New Zealand a new Baha'i of >6 months was declared a covenant breaker for refusing to break off an old >friendship with a non-Bahai from among Shoghi Effendi's relatives. This >person had only *been* a Baha'i for 6 months, so how long really did she >have to respond to the Baha'i authorities' threats? And under such >pressure she resigned from the Baha'i faith but was declared a covenant >breaker after the fact anyway! All this sort of cult-like behavior is >carefully hidden from the outside world and also from naive Baha'i >intellectuals. > >The whole concept of 'covenant-breaker', which might have some validity >with regard to schismatics like Remey, has been expanded to become a >control mechanism used to manipulate all thinking Baha'is. > >I wrote that many Baha'is >>>:>believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be >>>:>subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological >>>:>science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in >>>:>general often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, >>>:>chasing people out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. >> > >You said: >>>Well if this is the Baha'i Faith then I don't want it either. How about >>>providing some references from the Baha'i writings that support what you >>>have written above. You are a university professor, so you have to support >>>what you write. Otherwise, your academia falls into question. > >I did not say that the Baha'i writings support these beliefs, though >`Abdu'l-Baha is critical of Darwinian biology and Shoghi Effendi in his >letters of the late 1940s seems especially apocalyptic. I said that these >are widespread beliefs of the actual Baha'is. And they are not nice when >you demur from these beliefs, let me tell you. Check out the archived >discussions on talisman@indiana.edu on my Web site if you want to see the >flaming over such issues. > >https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm > >>>There are 450 Baha'is in Poland. Poland formed its first National >>>Spiritual Assembly in 1992. We were allowed to teach the faith here since >>>1989. Just under 3 years and boom a National Spiritual Assembly. Not bad >>>eh? > >I just hope that the Polish Baha'is, having suffered under totalitarianism >for so many years, can create a Baha'i community more like that envisaged >in Secret of Divine Civilization than like that envisaged by the often >quite fascist current Baha'i administrators. > >As for your naive assumption that Baha'i administrators don't want power >over people, I can only suggest that you keep your eyes on them. Farzam >Arbab does have a Ph.D. in economics, but he never did anything >professionally with that degree of note. He never bothered even to learn >Arabic or Persian. He did pioneer in Latin America, but lots of people >have pioneered under difficult conditions. Baha'i friends of mine who had >anything to do with him found him arrogant and highly anti-intellectual. >He has advocated 'writing off' the Baha'i intellectuals of the West. When >he was elected to the house of justice in 1993, the first thing he did was >to throw a tantrum over the Baha'i Encyclopedia, a huge project involving >hundreds of Baha'i thinkers throughout the world. He pronounced its draft >a piece of 'secular humanism' and 'materialism' (borrowing code words from >the Christian Fundamentalists). He insisted it all be rewritten in >fundamentalist fashion, and went about lambasting everyone who had been >involved in its production. These included many devoted Baha'i Ph.D.'s in >history, philosophy, and other fields. Arbab set himself above all of >them, attacked them, sullied their reputations, made all their work >useless, and the rest of the House members let him do it because he cared >so much and they didn't really. > >So I haven't had a good experience with your nice humble Dr. Arbab. As far >as I can see, he's arranged for a large wood-panelled office for himself in >Israel, a country with a per capita income of $17,000 a year, with a good >view of Haifa's beautiful bay, and is spending $200 million of your money >on marble facades for the buildings in which he works. What is his salary, >by the way? How is that chauffeured Mercedes paid for? And how did he get >appointed to the ITC, from which he was elected to the House, in the first >place? Whose client was he? To whom does he owe favors? > >I wouldn't have any problem with all this if he hadn't demonstrated himself >a tinpot tyrant and gone about ruining the lives of my friends by >slandering them, forcing several of them out of the faith with threats of >shunning, for daring complain about how he treated the Encyclopedia issue. >Very humble. Very nice. Yes. > > >cheers > >Juan Cole >Professor >Department of History >University of Michigan > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:46 AM Subject: fw Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship fw -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: talisman ; FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 3:44 PM Subject: Re: fw from Poland (was: censorship) > >Dear Miguel: > >You wrote: > >>>The internet is more universal than you imagine. > >I am, of course, well aware of how universal the internet is. What I said >was that the vast majority of its users are in literate countries and that >they tend to be educated. This is true of users in Poland and Germany. I >also said that the *Baha'is* on the internet are in terms of numbers very >predominantly in such countries and have such a profile, which is true. >There are about 60,000 adult Baha'is in the U.S. (a third of whom are >probably interested enough to actually check out the faith on the Net), and >about 13,000 adult Baha'is in Canada (ditto). [I am not counting 'mail >returns' and 'Baha'is' no one can find]. > >My point was that to run a Baha'i Usenet group with strict censorship of a >sort practiced in Communist China makes no sense, given either the profile >of the Net or the profile of the Baha'is on it. > >>>I am also a professor at a university, mind you, only an assistant >>>professor. No one's threatened me from the Baha'is. > >There are lots of things wrong with this way of looking at things. First >of all, you don't get threatened unless you are considered 'prominent' and >unless you are saying something some Rightwing Baha'i Big Cheese does not >like. Does the fact that *you* haven't been threatened prove anything at >all? The question is, is it right for *anyone* to be threatened? Even in >a dictatorship like Nigeria there are intellectuals who haven't been >threatened or jailed. Does that mean no one has, or that the regime >(R.I.P.) is not a repressive dictatorship? > >>>For me the Baha'i Faith >>>is first and foremost a religion, and not a university subject. People who >>>wish to push the Faith in their own direction, will not win the love and >>>respect of the Baha'i institutions, and certainly not of the Baha'is. I am >>>quite frankly amazed at the audacity of someone who wishes to take the >>>reins of the Faith in their hands. > >Are you suggesting that the Baha'i faith is off-limits for academic study? >Why in the world did Shoghi Effendi so strenuously encourage the study of >comparative religions, Islamics, and history in order to better understand >the faith if he did not what Baha'i professors to use those tools to write >about it? What kind of weird state of mind produces a conviction that for >a Baha'i professor to write academically about the Baha'i faith is an >attempt to 'push' it in some 'direction'? How can studying it 'push' it? >And if the status quo can't withstand it being studied, isn't there >something fishy about the status quo? > >>>That is not to say that criticism is not allowed in the Faith. Criticism, >>>if it is constructive is not only the right but the obligation of every >>>Baha'i, provided that it does not undermine the authority of the Baha'i >>>institutions, which were, after, not man-made, but from Baha'u'llah >>>Himself, as you no doubt well know, seeing that you are a university >>>professor, and that you have written much about the Baha'i Faith. > >Criticism of administrators or administrative actions is strictly >prohibited in the Baha'i faith. It may be voiced only at Baha'i-only >meetings such as Feast, where it can be quietly buried, or in letters to >Baha'i administrators, who can refuse to be responsive. 'Prominent' public >critics are ruthlessly silenced with threats of being sanctioned or >shunned. There is a Party Line in this administrative dictatorship, and >everyone is expected to toe it Or Else. > >Compare that situation to 'liberal' politics, of which contemporary Baha'is >are so disdainful. President Clinton is the most powerful man in the >world. But I can write an op-ed piece for a major newspaper and publish it >tomorrow publicly criticizing his Middle East policy. He can't and won't >punish me for doing so. But your supposedly humble and nice Baha'i >administrators would come down on a Baha'i who did the equivalent thing to >them like a ton of bricks, have him ostracized, and engage in a global >campaign of backbiting against him. So who is better, morally flawed >Clinton, or the Baha'i tinpot dictators who are so sanctimonious about >their piety? And by the way, the society `Abdu'l-Baha envisages in Secret >of Divine Civilization looks a lot more 'liberal' than current 'Baha'i' >practice. > >>>Anyway, Baha'is do not quickly put anyone out of the community for >>>covenant breaking. > >This is a false cover story, Miguel. In fact, Baha'is are routinely >accused of covenant breaking by other Baha'is, over mere differences of >opinion, in ways that can ruin their reputations. Auxiliary Board members >and Counselors routinely spread false rumors about people they don't like >as being infirm in the covenant. They call Baha'is of whose views they >disapprove to private meetings for interrogations and intimate to them that >if they don't fall silent they will be declared covenant breakers. The >Baha'is are so terrified as a result that they do just fall silent, and you >never hear about the bullying. In late '96 in New Zealand a new Baha'i of >6 months was declared a covenant breaker for refusing to break off an old >friendship with a non-Bahai from among Shoghi Effendi's relatives. This >person had only *been* a Baha'i for 6 months, so how long really did she >have to respond to the Baha'i authorities' threats? And under such >pressure she resigned from the Baha'i faith but was declared a covenant >breaker after the fact anyway! All this sort of cult-like behavior is >carefully hidden from the outside world and also from naive Baha'i >intellectuals. > >The whole concept of 'covenant-breaker', which might have some validity >with regard to schismatics like Remey, has been expanded to become a >control mechanism used to manipulate all thinking Baha'is. > >I wrote that many Baha'is >>>:>believe cities are about to be evaporated, believe women should be >>>:>subordinate to the men on the uhj, believe that all of modern biological >>>:>science, based on Darwin is wrong because scripture says so, and in >>>:>general often behave in ways that are intolerant and narrow-minded, >>>:>chasing people out of the religion, so that it remains tiny. >> > >You said: >>>Well if this is the Baha'i Faith then I don't want it either. How about >>>providing some references from the Baha'i writings that support what you >>>have written above. You are a university professor, so you have to support >>>what you write. Otherwise, your academia falls into question. > >I did not say that the Baha'i writings support these beliefs, though >`Abdu'l-Baha is critical of Darwinian biology and Shoghi Effendi in his >letters of the late 1940s seems especially apocalyptic. I said that these >are widespread beliefs of the actual Baha'is. And they are not nice when >you demur from these beliefs, let me tell you. Check out the archived >discussions on talisman@indiana.edu on my Web site if you want to see the >flaming over such issues. > >https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm > >>>There are 450 Baha'is in Poland. Poland formed its first National >>>Spiritual Assembly in 1992. We were allowed to teach the faith here since >>>1989. Just under 3 years and boom a National Spiritual Assembly. Not bad >>>eh? > >I just hope that the Polish Baha'is, having suffered under totalitarianism >for so many years, can create a Baha'i community more like that envisaged >in Secret of Divine Civilization than like that envisaged by the often >quite fascist current Baha'i administrators. > >As for your naive assumption that Baha'i administrators don't want power >over people, I can only suggest that you keep your eyes on them. Farzam >Arbab does have a Ph.D. in economics, but he never did anything >professionally with that degree of note. He never bothered even to learn >Arabic or Persian. He did pioneer in Latin America, but lots of people >have pioneered under difficult conditions. Baha'i friends of mine who had >anything to do with him found him arrogant and highly anti-intellectual. >He has advocated 'writing off' the Baha'i intellectuals of the West. When >he was elected to the house of justice in 1993, the first thing he did was >to throw a tantrum over the Baha'i Encyclopedia, a huge project involving >hundreds of Baha'i thinkers throughout the world. He pronounced its draft >a piece of 'secular humanism' and 'materialism' (borrowing code words from >the Christian Fundamentalists). He insisted it all be rewritten in >fundamentalist fashion, and went about lambasting everyone who had been >involved in its production. These included many devoted Baha'i Ph.D.'s in >history, philosophy, and other fields. Arbab set himself above all of >them, attacked them, sullied their reputations, made all their work >useless, and the rest of the House members let him do it because he cared >so much and they didn't really. > >So I haven't had a good experience with your nice humble Dr. Arbab. As far >as I can see, he's arranged for a large wood-panelled office for himself in >Israel, a country with a per capita income of $17,000 a year, with a good >view of Haifa's beautiful bay, and is spending $200 million of your money >on marble facades for the buildings in which he works. What is his salary, >by the way? How is that chauffeured Mercedes paid for? And how did he get >appointed to the ITC, from which he was elected to the House, in the first >place? Whose client was he? To whom does he owe favors? > >I wouldn't have any problem with all this if he hadn't demonstrated himself >a tinpot tyrant and gone about ruining the lives of my friends by >slandering them, forcing several of them out of the faith with threats of >shunning, for daring complain about how he treated the Encyclopedia issue. >Very humble. Very nice. Yes. > > >cheers > >Juan Cole >Professor >Department of History >University of Michigan > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:51 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 10:00 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: [bahai-faith] Censorship vs Free Speech >According to George & Marlena: > >> >I >> >>> have also had some personal dealings with censorship in some newsgroups. >> >I >> >>> question, though, if any freedoms are in question here. > >quoting me: >> >> >> >>How so? For example, my own freedom to raise a question about a >> >>prophecy of `Abdu'l Baha in a way that cannot conceivably be seen >> >>as rude, hostile, etc. or violating any newsgroup rules. >> >> >> >> I see no reason why >> >>> everyone should be allowed to print anything they want, anywhere they >> >want. >> >> >> >>Straw man. The fact is that no one is asking for that. Just for >> >>consistent, fair application of the guidelines. >> >> >> Dear Paul, >> It seems to me, based on what you have just written(above), that unlimited >> freedom to write anything you want IS exactly what you want. > >How is that? I specifically stated that the post in question wa >not in any way rude, hostile, or in violation of newgroup rules. >The problem isn't even that it was *rejected* but that it was >simply thrown away, and when I asked for an explanation there was >none. This surely violates the procedures that srb has set in >place. And above, I say that all I'm asking for is consistent, >fair application of the guidelines. I really don't see where >you're coming from on this, with such an accusation. > >> Insulting and demeaning people by calling them names is not what I would >> call freedom, but an abuse of freedom. And that kind of abuse is what I am >> against. > >Where in the world do you see me insulting and demeaning people >by calling them names? Surely not in the passage quoted above. >I'm mystified. And surely not in the post which was discarded >without an explanation; if I'd kept a copy you'd be able to see >the evidence. But the gist of it was posted to this list, >followed by an explanation of all the hassles Bill Hyman put me >through. > >The only possible reason for your making such a harsh accusation >that I can imagine is that you think my line "Straw man" was >intended to call *you* a name, to insult and demean you by >calling you "straw man." Well, what kind of goofy namecalling is >that? What could it mean? If this misapprehension is at the root >of your accusation, then let me clarify. The dictionary definition >is "an argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted." >Thus what I was calling a straw man was your setting up the critics of srb >moderation as people who want to be able to say whatever they >want wherever and whenever they want. You were making *me*-- or >rather your imagination of me-- a straw man for the sake of >argument, caricaturing my position. Now you're sticking to that >caricature in spite of clear evidence against it, and imagining >that you see namecalling where there is none. You can easily attack and >defeat such a position, but it's an artificial construction >designed (unconsciously perhaps) to be easily defeated. The >critics of srb moderation want simply 1) clearcut policies 2) >fair and evenhanded application of them 3) responsive and helpful >moderators rather than rude and hostile ones. > >That's NO BIG DEAL. For most of its history srb had all these >things in my opinion, and only recently has it slid (ever more >rapidly, it appears) in the direction of arbitrary, high-handed, >hostile, nonresponsive moderation. If Dick Detweiler or Alma >Engels, for example, were on the team now, we wouldn't see the >kinds of abuses that are cropping up, IMO. > >> PostOn. >> George > >Agreed! >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:53 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 -----Original Message----- From: Harold Shinsato To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 7:02 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Fw: [bahai-faith] censored from s.r.b also on Sat, 6 Jun 1998 >Star, > >> I also believe that it is difficult for moderators to stay detached from >> their personal tendencies towards power. Many people, IMO, that have had to >> go through unfair situations and finally get a piece of the pie (power) >> exercise their power as a means of preserving their hard won positions from >> those in the ranks who might pose any threat. > >I haven't been in the faith long. I haven't even read the Kitab-I-Iquan or >the Kitab-i-Aqdas. But I have a prayer book with the Tablet of the Holy >Mariner, and it says in there that there will be those who wish to rise >above their station. "They have desired to ascend unto that state which >the Lord hath ordained to be above their stations." > >Please also read this introduction to the tablet of the Holy Mariner. It >states that the tablet is a prophetic work, of things that would happen >after it was written. It seems as if Baha'u'llah was talking about the >current state of affairs. > >"Study the Tablet of the Holy Mariner that ye may know the truth, and >consider that the Blessed Beauty hath fully foretold future events. Let >them >who perceive, take warning!" - Abdu'l-Baha > >One of the things that attracted me to the Baha'i faith was its insistence >upon the independent investigation of the truth. It seems that a chosen >few have interposed themselves as adjudicators of that truth, when that is >completely beyond their station. I can see them maintaining a certain >decorum - but to restrict the free flow of the study of the faith! > >Something is seriously wrong here. > >> I believe it is a spiritual >> test not to misuse that power once it is gained as we have seen time and >> again in the old world order. > >It looks like they are failing miserably! > >> However, as an American, this clawing >> your way to power being in the Faith was shocking to me. I pray that this >> old world order behaviour will be purged from the Faith one day, >> unfortunately it is well in place. > >It does not seem to me that Baha'i's that are firm in the Covenant would do >such a thing. I can only point to the very next line in the Tablet of the >Holy Mariner, after Baha'u'llah says that there will be those who desire to >ascend to a station above that which the Lord did ordain... > >"Whereupon the burning meteor cast them out from them that abide in the >Kingdom of His >presence, Glorified be my Lord, the All-Glorious!" > > Allah'u'Abha! > Harold Shinsato >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 10:58 AM Subject: Bill responds, as do I: (was Re: Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship) The message is from dejanews.com.... 70 percent of the messages on bahai-faith@makelist.com may be mine only because I forward them from alt.religion.bahai so that those denied talk.religion.bahai as a result of srb censorship might be able to follow along as they wish.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: talk.religion.misc ; alt.religion.bahai ; soc.rights.human ; soc.culture.israel ; soc.culture.iranian Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 9:55 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship >> From: FG >> To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com >> Subject: [bahai-faith] Bill Hyman on Bahai censorship >> Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 6:42 PM >> >> Note that this was posted by the then future and now present >> soc.religion.bahai moderator back last August 1997: >> >> >> Subject: Bahai "art"/hate mail #2 >> From: FG >> Date: 1997/07/08 >> Message-ID: <33C23917.1614@hotmail.com> >> Newsgroups: >> >alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc,soc.rights.human,soc.culture.israel,s o > >> c.culture.iranian >> [More Headers][Subscribe to alt.religion.bahai] >> Bill & Jane Hyman wrote: >> > >> > I did not think much of F. Glaysher's posting to soc.religion.bahai on >> > "art". It did not portray the loving spirit which most of us have come >> > to expect in this forum. I would like to volunteer to censor his future >> > postings. Bill Hyman >> hymanfam@samoatelco.com >> >> No fascism here.... Hitler felt the same way about his "art." >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher > >Mr. Glaysher: >This post was forwarded to me by one of your readers. Where did you get it, >or is this censored or privileged information? It should not be available >as it was a submission which I sent to srb but was not posted. I was asked >by one of the moderators, at that time, if I was serious about censoring >your material and I replied that I was not. It was just a means of >expressing my distaste. I expect most readers would have the same opinion >about your original submission. As you are well aware I did not >become a moderator on srb for some weeks afterwards. You are also well aware >that there is a charter on srb, which is very similar to your >makelist.com's, which srb moderators uphold. It could be considered a mild >form of censorship, but is not that better than not being able to enforce >the charter and posting Covenant Breaker material as your forum does? I say >"your" forum >because you were the main force behind its creation, and also because you >post over 70% of its submissions. If you or any readers >would like to reply to me, please use the following e-mail address because I >do not >subscribe to forums which post Covenant Breaker material. At present I only >subscribe to >soc.religion.bahai, to bahai-discuss and to a vegetarian pro-life forum. > >Bill Hyman (billh@samoatelco.com) > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:22 AM Subject: fw Re: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" -----Original Message----- From: Cheryll & Wade Schuette To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Bahai Discuss Archive on "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >>Some of you may be interested to know that >>I've added an archive of all of the discussion that took place on >>the mailing list Bahai Discuss last fall regarding the >>second interest poll for talk.religion.bahai, prior to the BCCA's >>depriving me of my right of access to its lists. > >(private message) > >Fred, Have you ever asked your Auxiliary Board Member for Protection for >assistance >in dealing with your concerns? What was their response? > > Wade > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:25 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan fyi -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Cromer To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 5:11 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan >As far as I can see nothing of real interest is transpiring here except >when Professor Cole posts his translations of the Tablets and Ian Kluge >gives one of his delightful lessons in logic - which is why I keep >lurking whenever I can muster the time and energy. However, what saddens >me is that the Professor Cole has seen it fit to use this little corner >of cyberspace as a sniperís nest in his private war against the Bahaíi >Institutions and certain individuals, who are being slandered viciously >on a regular obsessive basis, even if they for obvious reasons are not >in a position to defend their honour. You accuse Juan of slander. My copy of dictionary.com lists slander with the following definition: slander \Slan"der\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {slandered}; p. pr. & vb. n. {slandering}.] 1. To defame; to injure by maliciously uttering a false report; to tarnish or impair the reputation of by false tales maliciously told or propagated; to calumniate. O, do not slander him, for he is kind. --Shak. 2. To bring discredit or shame upon by one's acts. Tax not so bad a voice To slander music any more than once. --Shak. Syn: To asperse; defame; calumniate; vilify; malign; belie; scandalize; reproach. See {Asperse}. It is clear from the definition that an important component of slander is a lack of truthfullness in the charges brought against the victim. Juan has made some clear statements which could be viewed as reflecting negatively upon certian institutions and individuals in the Baha'i religious orthodoxy. However, he has also documented these remarks with extensive lists of factual events which back up his claims. If you have any reason to feel that he has been untruthful--a critical component of slander by the way--please let us know what he has said that is not true. Otherwise I must dismiss this accusation of slander as being--slander--itself. These lists, combined or separate, >may become significant forums of expression in the community, but >certainly not while this kind of abuse is going on.... Methinks that the real abuse is what happened to Juan Cole, the Waldbridges, and certain others at the hands of fanatical Baha'is. Matthew Cromer Matthew Cromer matthew_cromer@iname.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: fw Juan Cole: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan fyi -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dagur Nordberg Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 4:24 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan Dear Dagur: You wrote: >in his private war against the Baha’i >Institutions and certain individuals, I am not at war with anyone, either Baha'i institutions or individuals. I have lots of old friends on various Baha'i institutions, whom I respect, and who I think do a good job. But it is the duty of a public intellectual to critique the status quo. Such a critique is useful for society in identifying and fixing problems. To outlaw such public critique as 'attack' or 'war' is to misuse words on behalf of repression. And, besides, cyberspace is not private, it is public. The messages posted here get forwarded all over the world, and you may be assured that they get forwarded to the principals. >who are being slandered viciously >on a regular obsessive basis, even if they for obvious reasons are not >in a position to defend their honour. First of all, to 'slander' is to speak a deliberate untruth about an individual. Please identify any instance in which you believe I have with knowledge, forethought, and malice, said something here about someone that I know to be untrue. Second, I don't understand why anyone who is criticized here cannot respond all they like, or have a friend do so if they are shy. The address is talisman@umich.edu and the list is unmoderated, so a posting to it will immediately go out to everyone. It would be fine with me to have some of my propositions debated publicly by the persons concerned. Reasoned public discourse is far preferable to skulking around behind the scenes trying to make some persons and ideas taboo with whisper campaigns. Third, why is it that it is all right for certain members of Baha'i institutions viciously to slander people, but they can't take as good as they get? cheers Juan ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:41 AM Subject: ffw Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship -----Original Message----- From: K. Paul Johnson To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 4:27 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Misunderstanding >No problema, George, I'm just relieved that there's a rational >explanation for your being offended. BTW, though, the "straw >man" phenomenon is a very interesting one in terms of the >arguments among Baha'is. For example, Miguel yesterday accusing >Juan of wanting to take over direction of the entire Baha'i Faith. >Well, all Baha'is are against anyone who would do that, right? >So they should all be against Juan. Problem is, the alleged takeover >effort is a straw man. Easily defeated, but constructed for the >sake of winning the argument. Constructed by whom? I doubt >Miguel invented this accusation. Can you tell us, Miguel, where >you got such an idea? > >Cheers, >Paul >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship -----Original Message----- From: mbkafes@bestweb.net Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 2:26 PM Subject: Re: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: censorship >Hi Miquel-- > >Hope things are going well for you in Poland and all other Polish people. > >I was reading your reply to Juan Cole about censorship. I was wondering if >you are aware that people who are not Baha'is and never have been can be >declared CBs. Also, it is official Baha'i practice to also shun "descendents" >of CBs too! I guess Covenant breaking does something to the DNA. > >When I first realized the above, it really floored me. I see it as a >regression back to the Islamic "dhimmi" (spelling?) In the NWO there will be >a permanent group of second class citizens. > >But, of course, I don't believe Baha'u'llah intended this. > >Peace >Milissa Boyer Kafes >mbkafes@bestweb.net > > > > >-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- >https://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 6:56 AM Subject: fw Re: fw Re: Ad hominem attacks? fyi -----Original Message----- From: AErfani@aol.com To: schuette@umich.edu Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 7:30 PM Subject: Re: Ad hominem attacks? >In a message dated 05/06/98 16:38:22 GMT, you write: > ><< If he continues to use this list as a forum for such > personal attacks, I would like to request that consideration > be given to suspending him from Talisman. > > Wade Schuette >> > > >Dear Wade: > >I second your request if that is needed. >This person takes up too much of a limited commodity(bandwidth) and says >nothing but deliberate mis-representation and frequent personal attacks. > >Abbas Erfani > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:02 AM Subject: fw : Re: discussions of problems fyi -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dagur Nordberg Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 7:46 PM Subject: Re: discussions of problems > > >I did want to add a couple other things. > >The first is that I am sorry Dagur and I could not have gotten to know one >another in the old days before cyberspace emerged, when I was an enrolled >Baha'i. You know, I was not always as critical as I am now, and I never >was publicly critical. And all the time till late April 1996 I never >disobeyed any of the Baha'i institutions or broke a Baha'i law, not even once. > >When I was a Baha'i, I would never have dreamed of independently starting a >formal list like H-Bahai; I would not have dreamed of publishing the Babi >and Baha'i texts suppressed by the House; I would not have dreamed of >publicly criticizing the house or its members or hands of the cause, etc. >I was quite a sincere Baha'i. And I never broke the covenant by word or >deed all the time I was a Baha'i and the Baha'i authorities knew it. > >When they falsely and outrageously threatened me and my friends with being >declared covenant breakers in order to close down Talisman I, in my view >they relieved me of all further responsibility to them. They are not my >leaders, and they do not stand for my values, nor do they stand for the >values of Baha'u'llah or `Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. There is no >further reason for me not to discuss the things wrong with the way the >Baha'i faith is being run, just as I would discuss the things wrong with >the way any institution is run with which I have had a long association. > >If the Baha'i authorities wanted my continued cooperation, they could have >politely asked for it and sought the path of mutual consultation. They >chose not to do that. They chose to try to bully me and other Baha'i >academics. And there is a price to pay when you are so maladroit as to >expose the inner workings of your organization as cult-like to a major >historian in that field. If they did not want to pay the price of >exposure, they should have been more careful. Now they are going to be >exposed. I do this because I am extremely distressed to see what the >proud and beautiful Faith of Baha'u'llah, which was in my heart for a >quarter of a century, has become. And I believe that only by speaking out >can I discharge my final responsibility to Baha'u'llah, who bestowed so >much on me, which is to provide some encouragement to the Baha'i >institutions to cease their rapid ratcheting toward the techniques and >mindset of the Moonies, the Scientologists, and other mind control cults. >When you get to the point where you are threatening your most prominent >academic historians with being shunned over their email discussions, that >is the road you are going down. > >That said, I recognize that I can seem irascible on these unmoderated >lists, and all it would take would be a few friends suggesting I get back >off for me to do so, if they really think the things I'm saying are doing >more harm than good. > > >cheers Juan > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:11 AM To: Ron House Subject: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED fw -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >> >The UHJ is ... >> >>promised by Baha'u'llah to be ... free from all error. >> > >> >I'd like to see a reference for that. > >Don't bother, there aren't any. I've been into this >matter by directly asking the UHJ for any quote of >Baha'u'llah's that directly says that 'Abdu'l-Baha >is infallible, and they can't give me one. (All the >commonly repeated quotes only imply it if you read >them a certain way.) And as 'Abdu'l-Baha is the only >one who says the UHJ is freed from error, his >problem transfers to them too. > >-- >Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > >Utopia (n): The rule of law without the rule of lawyers. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:11 AM Subject: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED fw -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 11:18 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >> >The UHJ is ... >> >>promised by Baha'u'llah to be ... free from all error. >> > >> >I'd like to see a reference for that. > >Don't bother, there aren't any. I've been into this >matter by directly asking the UHJ for any quote of >Baha'u'llah's that directly says that 'Abdu'l-Baha >is infallible, and they can't give me one. (All the >commonly repeated quotes only imply it if you read >them a certain way.) And as 'Abdu'l-Baha is the only >one who says the UHJ is freed from error, his >problem transfers to them too. > >-- >Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > >Utopia (n): The rule of law without the rule of lawyers. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:14 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw : Re: discussion of problems -----Original Message----- From: Alison and Steve Marshall To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 1:59 AM Subject: Re: discussion of problems >I too am extremely distressed about what has happened to the proud and >beautiful Faith of Baha'u'llah. At the moment, I am discovering that it is >not just things like freedom of expression and women on the House that have >been the victims of AO policies, it is in fact the whole realm of >spirituality. I think this is the greatest loss of all. I want to belong to >the spiritual community of Baha'u'llah, not just a physical one. > >Unfortunately, the AO policies relentlessly emphasise administration and >growth. To me, this completely ignores why we are Baha'is in the first place >- because we love Baha'u'llah - and does not privilege as it should the >expression of our shared connection with Him and each other. Despite the >couple of lines in the 1996 Ridvan message about the importance of >devotional life, it is glaringly obvious in my local community that the >importance of our spiritual connection and its expression is lost on people. >They will come to feast, because administration is important, but not >community prayers, because they will not think that praying together is of >much consequence. The spiritual dimension of the community is totally >unnurtured and our shared expression of it hollow. > >But shared spirituality is what I need, and I feel betrayed that I can't get >such a basic need met by the Baha'i community. We've completely lost a >handle on what religion is for. > >Alison > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:14 AM Subject: fw : Re: discussion of problems -----Original Message----- From: Alison and Steve Marshall To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 1:59 AM Subject: Re: discussion of problems >I too am extremely distressed about what has happened to the proud and >beautiful Faith of Baha'u'llah. At the moment, I am discovering that it is >not just things like freedom of expression and women on the House that have >been the victims of AO policies, it is in fact the whole realm of >spirituality. I think this is the greatest loss of all. I want to belong to >the spiritual community of Baha'u'llah, not just a physical one. > >Unfortunately, the AO policies relentlessly emphasise administration and >growth. To me, this completely ignores why we are Baha'is in the first place >- because we love Baha'u'llah - and does not privilege as it should the >expression of our shared connection with Him and each other. Despite the >couple of lines in the 1996 Ridvan message about the importance of >devotional life, it is glaringly obvious in my local community that the >importance of our spiritual connection and its expression is lost on people. >They will come to feast, because administration is important, but not >community prayers, because they will not think that praying together is of >much consequence. The spiritual dimension of the community is totally >unnurtured and our shared expression of it hollow. > >But shared spirituality is what I need, and I feel betrayed that I can't get >such a basic need met by the Baha'i community. We've completely lost a >handle on what religion is for. > >Alison > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 7:53 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan Dagur, If this were accurate, which I don't believe it is, I would have to say perhaps Juan has unwittingly been absorbing the tactics used by the moderators of srb and those of other Bahais during the last two interest polls for talk.religion.bahai.... Are you concerned that I have been the victim of systematic attacks and character assassination by Bahais? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Dagur Nordberg To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan1@umich.edu Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 5:18 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan >But you’re right, of course, after reading your last post to Miguel >Watler I have come to realize that "slander" is not the right word to >use about your treatment of these individuals, character assassination >is a much more appropriate term. To save members of the Juan Cole fan >club the trouble of looking "character assassination" up in the >dictionary, the definition goes as follows: > >Unfounded charges leveled to discredit individuals, usually in a >hysteric atmosphere, resulting in damage to their reputation. >Fabrication, distortion and sophistry are the tools of the trade. >Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbles, believed that the bigger the >lie, the more convincing it would be. Macchiavelli taught that the ends >justify the means. Both "principles" are applied in character >assassination. > >Dagur Nordberg > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 7:38 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: fw Juan Cole: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan fw Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Roger Borseth Cc: talisman Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 12:29 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan > >Dear Roger: > >I have the Persian document prepared for Mazandarani, which he was forced >to sign, by the body on which Furutan served. I will eventually dig it >out, translate it, and put it on the web. > >The document makes it clear that the concern that Furutan and others had >was that by publishing early Babi histories by eyewitnesses, which >contradicted in their details Nabil's Narrative, Mazandarani was >undermining the credibility of Nabil. > >Any historian (or any thinking person for that matter) knows that >historical events generate lots of accounts that conflict with one another. > The whole point of academic history is to attempt to know history through >weighting and sorting those accounts. Nabil is late (1888), and often >depended on his own or others' 40-year-old memories. Of *course* his >account differs with those of the eyewitnesses at Zanjan, e.g. > >The attack on and silencing of Mazandarani, who appears to have been >severely threatened by Furutan and the other Iranian Baha'i authorities, >not only ruined Mazandarani's life but also prevented his massive >historical work from ever appearing in its entirety. > >Fadil Mazandarani was also a Hand of the Cause. So even if you have a >brief for Hands of the Cause, here you have to make a choice between them >on who was right. > >What was done to Fadil was barbaric, and, alas, is all too typical of how >Baha'i thinkers have been treated since the 1940s. The Baha'i system is >set up so that narrowminded persons can easily become extremely powerful by >getting themselves elected or appointed to something, and then they can use >the potent taboos of administrative sanctions and the covenant as a way of >pushing around or pushing out anyone with an open mind. > >The equivalent thing, by the way, would have been for the Lutheran >authorities to have silenced Paul Tillich and forbidden him to publish his >history of Christianity. The way that Furutan and other like-minded >persons have run the Baha'i faith is not normal, not healthy, and has not >been productive for the faith. > >The census of Iranian Baha'is conducted by Bahiyyih Khanum in the 1920s >showed a million "Baha'is" (probably including close sympathizers). By >1978 there were only about 90,000 registered Baha'is in Iran, with another >200,000 sympathizers or ethnic Baha'is who declined to register. Furutan >and his friends took the flourishing and growing Baha'i movement created by >Baha'u'llah and `Abdu'l-Baha and ran it right down into the ground by going >around alienating all the Baha'is and those initially sympathetic to the >movement. The population of Iran grew by a factor of 7 in the twentieth >century. The Iranian Baha'i community at the same time dwindled into >insignificance. The story of the silencing of Fadil Mazandarani is only >one of hundreds of thousands of similar stories. > >You can have totalitarian control. Or you can have growth and creativity. >You can't have both. Baha'is have to decide whether Furutan's Iran and >Kazemzadeh's U.S. are going to be their models, or whether R.N. Shah's >India is. Which choice they make will determine whether they have any >future at all. > >At 08:52 AM 6/12/98 -0500, Roger Borseth wrote: >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Juan Cole +ADw-jrcole+AEA-umich.edu+AD4- >>To: Dagur Nordberg +ADw-d+AF8-nordberg+AEA-hotmail.com+AD4- >>Cc: talisman+AEA-umich.edu +ADw-talisman+AEA-umich.edu+AD4AOw- >irfan1+AEA-umich.edu >>+ADw-irfan1+AEA-umich.edu+AD4- >>Date: Thursday, June 11, 1998 6:32 PM >>Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan >> >>+AD4-So is this enough evidence for you? >>+AD4- >>+AD4-cheers Juan >> >> >>NO+ACE- There is nothing here that contains any of his words or reasons >for his >>actions, not is reference given to those +ACI-original+ACI- sources. I am >a strong >>believer in not seeing things through anothers eyes, or ears. Unless I can >>see for myself and know of my own knowledge that what you claim is true, it >>is but mere opinion and not historical proof. >> >> >>2. O SON OF SPIRIT+ACE- >> >>The best beloved of all things in My sight is Justice+ADs- turn not away >>therefrom if thou desirest >> >>3 >> >> >> 4 >> >>Me, and neglect it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see >>with thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know of >>thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy neighbor. Ponder >>this in thy heart+ADs- how it behooveth thee to be. Verily justice is My >gift to >>thee and the sign of My loving-kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. >> >>-- Bah+AOE-'u'll+AOE-h, The Hidden Words of Baha'u'llah, p. >> >>Peace and Unity >> >>Roger >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 7:51 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan -----Original Message----- From: Dagur Nordberg To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: irfan1@umich.edu Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 1:29 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>If this were accurate, which I don't believe it is, I would have >>to say perhaps Juan has unwittingly been absorbing the tactics used by >>the moderators of srb and those of other Bahais during the last two >interest >>polls for talk.religion.bahai.... >> >>Are you concerned that I have been the victim of systematic attacks and >>character assassination by Bahais? > >No, frankly, I’m not, since I see no evidence of it. Are your eyes open? There's plenty of evidence on my web site under srb censorship.... On the contrary, in >the few posts I’ve seen that been directed to you by the moderators of >SRB and various other Baha’is you’ve been treated with courtesy and >patience. Their essentially banning me from posting to srb manifests patience and tolerance? As did the similarly deceitful actions of the BCCA? (of which evidence is also on my web site) Patience is a key word here, Fred - it sends a shiver up my >spine, I long to possess it and it constantly eludes me. You seem to >have problems with SRB being moderated and, generally speaking, having >to play by some set of rules. "You"? More than one person has had enough sense of mind to object to their censorship. Although I don’t follow the discussions on >SRB, I feel that Baha’is of all nationalities, classes and interests >have a perfect right to discuss matters of mutual interest in an >atmossphere of trust and compassion without being harrassed and vilified >by the chronically discontent, A Bahai code word/phrase that attempts to assassinate character and discredit anything the person might say that does not agree with the prevailing mentality.... Now who's assassinating character? You're guilty here of exactly what you charged Juan with, in my opinion.... having to put up with endless articles on >how microwave food is hurting you or wade through the infantile >meanderings of the latest manifestation of the Universal Expansion. > >DN Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 7:58 AM To: Harold Shinsato Subject: Re: Please do not forward my messages to other lists Sorry. The whole idea with makelist.com was to allow people access to discussion on alt.religion.bahai. I'll try to remember you don't want things forwarded anywhere. You might include a little note at the top of your messages: "Please do not forward off makelist.com" -----Original Message----- From: Harold Shinsato To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 4:50 PM Subject: Please do not forward my messages to other lists >Frederick, > >I am enjoying posting to bahai-faith@makelist.com, but I request that you not >cross post my email messages to other newsgroups. I hope that this is >acceptable to you. Please let me know if it is, or it is not. > > Thank you, > Harold Shinsato > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: fw Re: Mazandarani and the Interrogation -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Dagur Nordberg Cc: talisman@umich.edu Date: Friday, June 12, 1998 11:05 PM Subject: Re: Mazandarani and the Interrogation > >Dear Dagur: > >You will note that I am not sending my replies to Irfan because I don't >think that is the right place for this discussion. > >Basically, I feel that you are not open to what I am saying, and I >therefore am not particularly interested in pursuing this with you. You >have as much as called me a liar, said I was guilty of character >assassination, and so forth. I realize that these responses well up from >your faith, and from a reluctance to give credence to charges that, if >true, reflect very badly indeed on the leaders of the Baha'i faith. You >won't want to believe it, but I have no wish whatsoever to rob you of your >faith. I want the Baha'i faith to be better and more successful than it is >as an organization. Just as I believe that American democracy is better for >the exposure of Nixon's abuses in the Watergate affair and for the anti-war >movement during Vietnam, so I believe that a critique of the Baha'i status >quo, while painful, will leave the religion stronger and better and more >successful in the future. > >Let me ask you why in the world you think that I would risk my professional >reputation by publicly stating falsehoods? And why in the world would I be >so angry at the Martins, Arbabs, Furutans, etc., etc., if they haven't in >fact victimized my friends and people I admire? The very technique of the >more glaze-eyed among these people is to unbearably bully a Baha'i whom >they don't like, use unjustified threats of declaring him or her a CB to >silence the individual, and if the person will not be silenced, then to >depend upon the gullibility of the Baha'is in refusing to listen to any >victim's story because, of course, the Baha'i institutions are infallible >and divinely guided and could never do anything wrong. It is a perfect >racket. > >Of course, this technique of making liberals go away has been enormously >successful, and ex-Baha'i liberals have no credibility with the remaining >Baha'is nor do most of them have any energy to continue to make a case, >either to the Baha'is or the outside world, for the incredible abuses that >go on inside this organization ostensibly committed to tolerance! > >So, I accept all that, and I knew it when I resigned from the Baha'i faith. > I knew I would be vilified, dismissed, called prideful for refusing to >allow myself to be bullied, called dishonest, etc. This is fine with me. >I am well aware of my faults. No one is more aware of them. I am the >proverbial broken winged bird, a broken man, a man with shattered faith, a >man betrayed by supposed friends of 25 years. No insult, no condescension, >no charge of dishonesty or madness can take anything more away from me than >the power-hungry and cruel men who sat down and deliberately planned out >how to rob me of Baha'u'llah. > >As for my meeting with Birkland, I shall relate the entire story in detail >eventually. Initially it was mutually agreed that there should be a >consultation. But unexpectedly, instead of a consultation, he had brought >along a pre-prepared set of stupid questions which in fact were basically >charges of thought crimes. "How can you say you believe in Baha'u'llah if >you talk about him like a historical figure?" "Do you think any passage of >scripture can be understood apart from historical context?" "You are >critical of the accuracy of texts like Nabil's narrative; but these heroic >narratives have done rather well for us." The idiocy, the absolute >idiocy. It was the fast, and I kept my cool. I did not throw him out of >my house and I did not speak sharply to him. I now wish I had, but I >didn't. I was too nice, too obedient. He wrote a report to Haifa which >resulted in heresy charges against me. He called me up after ten p.m. on a >Tuesday and informed me that the ITC had concluded that I had 'made >statements contrary to the covenant.' "I'm sorry." he said in a funereal >tone. > >Many of the Talisman I discussions are up on my web site. Anyone can read >them to see if they think I was expressing the sincere views of a convinced >Baha'i. > >Incidentally, Birkland also interrogated John Walbridge and others in >exactly the same way. He gave a pledge in writing to share with Dr. >Walbridge his report to Haifa. He reneged on that pledge. He is a liar in >addition to being an inquisitor. > >But Birkland is not important. He is a gopher. If the people in Haifa had >told him to come to my house and kiss my feet, he would have done that. >The ones who drew up those stupid questions were people like Doug Martin. >They hide behind the screen of institutions with grand names, and plot on >how to chase out or silence anyone who does not fit their narrow-minded >conception of what a Baha'i is. Why do you think Denis MacEoin and so many >other thinkers who were once so devoted to the faith are no longer Baha'is? > These people were *mean* to them behind the scenes. And then all the >Baha'is see is an angry person denouncing how the Baha'i faith is run, and >they have no sympathy for the one victimized. You'd be surprised how >effective making someone's life hell can be if you are supposed to be his >religious leader and he begins by being full of awe for you, and what you >want is to get rid of him. It is as with love. A sudden betrayal can >break a heart, and then it is over. > >Am off on vacation. Don't be prideful in my absence. :-) > > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 8:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB conspiracy to ban, silence, & isolate Bahais It seems to me that this is an accurate evaluation of what the soc.religion.bahai moderators have done in denying me the right to post to srb using the signature file of my choice.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > >Dear Frederick: > >As usual, this decision to delete your sig line by SRB is absolutely >outrageous. They are attempting to keep all the readers of SRB throughout >the world from knowing about your Web page because they don't like some of >the links!! I wonder if it is possible to work with freedom-friendly Net >organizations to change the situation from the outside. It sure as hell >ain't going to change from the inside. > >the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy > and Technology, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch are only a > few whose goals include freedom of expression on the entire > Internet and Usenet. > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 13, 1998 8:23 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: SRB conspiracy to ban, silence, & isolate Bahais It seems to me that this is an accurate evaluation of what the soc.religion.bahai moderators have done in denying me the right to post to srb using the signature file of my choice.... -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 08, 1998 3:29 PM Subject: Re: Fw: "Investigation" of Withdrawals (was Leaving Faith) > >Dear Frederick: > >As usual, this decision to delete your sig line by SRB is absolutely >outrageous. They are attempting to keep all the readers of SRB throughout >the world from knowing about your Web page because they don't like some of >the links!! I wonder if it is possible to work with freedom-friendly Net >organizations to change the situation from the outside. It sure as hell >ain't going to change from the inside. > >the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the Center for Democracy > and Technology, and the Voters Telecommunications Watch are only a > few whose goals include freedom of expression on the entire > Internet and Usenet. > >cheers Juan > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:44 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:46 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:48 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:50 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" A new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha, with a page on Michael McKenny a now self-declared Pagan. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:54 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:55 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:56 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:57 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:59 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:01 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:03 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai, with the third beginning at the end of this summer.... https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:32 AM To: webmaster@eff.org Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Bahais and non-Bahais that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience? Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:34 AM To: info@ifea.net Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Bahais and non-Bahais that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience? Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:37 AM To: info@gilc.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Bahais and non-Bahais that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience? Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:47 AM To: webmaster@cdt.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, compared by some to the abuse of the Internet by Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:56 AM To: pfaw@pfaw.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, at times compared to the abuse of the Internet by Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 8:58 AM To: clay@panix.com Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, at times compared to the abuse of the Internet by Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:02 AM To: webmaster@ciec.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing Internet sites controlled by some Bahais, at times compared to the abuse of the Internet by Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:16 AM To: iarf@interfaith-center.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:17 AM To: religfree@compub.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:18 AM To: levendos@trib.com Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:18 AM To: icrf@aol.com Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:22 AM To: mail@becketfund.org Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in which your organization can be of help in the defense of the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is? After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to appeal to other possibly interested organizations. Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 10:48 AM To: bulkway@yahoo.com Subject: Bulk mailing two newsgroups only I'd like to bulk email all subscribers to soc.religion.bahai since 1992 and alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. Can you target just two newsgroups and harvest their addresses? I would think they would definitely be well under 5,000. I know alt.religion.bahai according to dejanews.com has had fewer than 600 different people post roughly 8,000+ messages to it. A copy of the message I'd like to send appears below. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ----------Message Begins: Because of the belief or experience of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's with extensive, systematic, premeditated censorship on the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, with Bill Hyman and other so-called moderators conspiring to isolate Bahais and deprive them of information, I am emailing you to inform you of the existence of a web site devoted to the defense of the basic right of religious freedom of conscience for Baha'is and focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the respect for conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The moderators of soc.religion.bahai have just recently taken public action against your hearing about the existence of this web site. The site includes considerable material relating to censorship on soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai, with the third interest poll commencing at the end of this summer. Discussion and polling will take place on news.groups, the Usenet newsgroup for the formation of new discussion groups. https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.religion.bahai or talk.religion.misc: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 11:06 AM To: parisgrp@aol.com Subject: bulk mailing I'd like information on bulk emailing for free. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 11:19 AM To: rsvp@virtual.gaura.com Subject: eMail Lists I'd like to bulk email all subscribers to soc.religion.bahai since 1992 and alt.religion.bahai since April 1, 1997. I'm not interested in emailing anyone off these two newsgroups. Can you target just two newsgroups and harvest their addresses? How much would you charge for one mailing? I would think they would definitely be well under 5,000. I know alt.religion.bahai according to dejanews.com has had fewer than 600 different people post roughly 8,000+ messages to it. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 11:30 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: SRB conspiracy to ban, silence, & isolate Bahais Sent to a couple of dozen other organizations: -----Original Message----- From: FG To: mail@becketfund.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's >that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing >newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of >Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in >which your organization can be of help in the defense of >the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for >Baha'is? > >After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an >unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other >Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to >appeal to other possibly interested organizations. > >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site >also includes extensive material relating to censorship on >soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 11:30 AM Subject: Re: SRB conspiracy to ban, silence, & isolate Bahais Sent to a couple of dozen other organizations: -----Original Message----- From: FG To: mail@becketfund.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's >that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing >newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of >Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in >which your organization can be of help in the defense of >the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for >Baha'is? > >After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an >unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other >Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to >appeal to other possibly interested organizations. > >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site >also includes extensive material relating to censorship on >soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 14, 1998 11:32 AM To: talisman Subject: Re SRB conspiracy to ban, silence, & isolate Bahais Sent to a couple of dozen other organizations: -----Original Message----- From: FG To: mail@becketfund.org Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's >that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing >newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of >Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in >which your organization can be of help in the defense of >the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for >Baha'is? > >After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an >unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other >Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to >appeal to other possibly interested organizations. > >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site >also includes extensive material relating to censorship on >soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:07 AM Subject: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED -----Original Message----- From: Bill Brewer To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:55 PM Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >I went to your web site for the first time, and was astonished to find >links to Dale Grider's site and the Shia site, both dedicated to >attacking the Faith. External enemies are fine, remembering the old ward >heelers' maxim 'I don't care what you say about me, as long as you spell >my name right'. You, however, seem to be following an older philosophy, >that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. You would do well to remember >the old saying, that 'He who sups with the Devil must needs use a long >spoon'. > >I came to the Faith already long in the tooth (52). Now nearly 70, I >had long seen the necessity of discipline and order. Submitting to the >disciplines of the Faith was no problem to me. This discipline, this >self-restraint, was already internalised befor I met the Baha'is. So >the authority of the Universal House and other bodies is freedom for me, >not restriction. Didn't Hegel say that 'freedom is the recognition of >necessity' ?. You, I presume, were raised in the American milieu, a >society which overvalues the intellect and where the only shared value >is self-indulgence. It appears you have not yet freed yourself from >these influences. > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:45 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 18 subscribers There are currently 18 subscribers on bahai-faith: bintyaya@aol.com FG@hotmail.com geomar@ctaz.com harris632@aol.com house@usq.edu.au jbork@ssm-i.com jeffery.decker@usa.net laaeterna@aol.com leonid@magnet.at mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca mnachreiner@acsoftware.com mrscotty@mninter.net owner@sociologist.com pjohnson@vsla.edu shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au stephenb@polarnet.ca whitbrandt@mailcity.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:51 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... -----Original Message----- From: JoySafari@aol.com To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 4:22 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... You know what? I think I'm finally getting it.... it's not that Juan spoke up and wrote about things that go against what some may call the Baha'i Party Line... it's because he used emotionally-charged and negative adjectives (and sometimes used inflammatory nouns).... and that although the adjectives may be defined and shown to have been used correctly... it was, however, because the adjectives he used are "emotionally charged" - and also can be viewed as a negative (i.e., downer OR oh Jeez, why'd you have to go and say the "Emporer had no clothes") that is why Juan was hustled out of the Faith. And I'm beginning to see why others that I know of ... gee, why that is exactly why they have been hustled out of the Faith! I'm serious. Plus our city has just completed a study on the Covenant given by Habib Riazati and I seem to be left with the impression that bringing out and making humans noble is the main purpose of religion. (Although he keeps spelling it 'nobel.') (Great deepening... I highly recommend it!) From previous Talisman discussion, Unity is more important than Truth within our guidelines for good consultation. So can we sum up then... it's Unity before Truth, Nobility above all, and use only bland adjectives whenever possible. Never, ever use negative, emotionally-charged adjectives. And you can score extra Baha'i points with those in power if you use warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives instead. I am also further understanding then that Truth is at the bottom of this whole list and that the warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives don't need to have much truth behind them, just as long as they are warm and fuzzy and feel good. So, with this important criteria for Baha'i worthiness, I think I need some scholarly backing here. Does anyone actually HAVE any scriptural references about "correct adjective usage?" Or really, I guess it could just fall under that "words as mild as milk" scriptural reference. Or maybe under "courtesy?" And so then - if that's the case - then, those "mildness" and "courtesy" references are higher on this "actual priority" list than even Unity. (Since, Juan and others broke the mildness rule and were then deemed disunifying.) And again... in our "actual" working list of "Baha'i worthiness criteria," Truth is on the bottom... and nearly irrelevant. (Oh sure. A few scriptures about honesty and truth here and there... possibly even in the Kitab-i-Aqdas right... but in actuality... in _actual_ promotion... Truth is nearly irrelevant when considering Baha'i worthiness and Truth is also usually a topic to be put on the back burner - if we ever get around to it at all.) Compliments > Mildness > Nobility > Unity > Truth And if you break the mildness (informal) commandment, you get hustled out of the Faith. (I chose "compliments" to represent the warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives.) With lots of adventurous Joy Similes, Marcella In a message dated 98-06-13 07:57:44 EDT, fglaysh@hotmail.com writes: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>If this were accurate, which I don't believe it is, I would have >>to say perhaps Juan has unwittingly been absorbing the tactics used by >>the moderators of srb and those of other Bahais during the last two >interest >>polls for talk.religion.bahai.... >> >>Are you concerned that I have been the victim of systematic attacks and >>character assassination by Bahais? > >No, frankly, I’m not, since I see no evidence of it. Are your eyes open? There's plenty of evidence on my web site under srb censorship.... On the contrary, in >the few posts I’ve seen that been directed to you by the moderators of >SRB and various other Baha’is you’ve been treated with courtesy and >patience. Their essentially banning me from posting to srb manifests patience and tolerance? As did the similarly deceitful actions of the BCCA? (of which evidence is also on my web site) Patience is a key word here, Fred - it sends a shiver up my >spine, I long to possess it and it constantly eludes me. You seem to >have problems with SRB being moderated and, generally speaking, having >to play by some set of rules. "You"? More than one person has had enough sense of mind to object to their censorship. Although I don’t follow the discussions on >SRB, I feel that Baha’is of all nationalities, classes and interests >have a perfect right to discuss matters of mutual interest in an >atmossphere of trust and compassion without being harrassed and vilified >by the chronically discontent, A Bahai code word/phrase that attempts to assassinate character and discredit anything the person might say that does not agree with the prevailing mentality.... Now who's assassinating character? You're guilty here of exactly what you charged Juan with, in my opinion.... having to put up with endless articles on >how microwave food is hurting you or wade through the infantile >meanderings of the latest manifestation of the Universal Expansion. > >DN Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> In a message dated 98-06-11 17:18:34 EDT, d_nordberg@hotmail.com writes: << posts are not private but are being forwarded all over the world they must be read by lots of people who know and respect you as a distuingished scholar and authority in your field, ready to take your word for anything, but who will have no clue as to the identity of those you so savagely beat upon in one post after another, branding them as "backbiters", "tinpot tyrants" etc. I used the word private because there are relatively few suscribers to these lists, most of them probably Baha’is, notoriously tolerant people, always willing to turn the other cheek if they can put in an instructive word edgewise between the blows. Also, and interestingly enough, no sign of the harsh rhetoric you use here can be found on your public homepages, which I frequently visit and thoroughly enjoy. What opened my eyes to the nature of the abuse was a remark you made, quite casually and in passing, in one of your posts (I don’t have the date since I don’t save e-mails), where you refer to a venerable and universally loved and respected Hand of the Cause, serving in Haifa, as a "bigot" without any attempt at clarification or explanation. I have never met the individuals you castigate here almost on a daily basis; however, I’ve met this particular Hand of the Cause, had the pleasure of conversing with him briefly and observed him on various occasions, and if he’s a bigot then I’m Catherine the Great of St. Petersburg. What problems are you trying to identify and fix by using such infamous epithets? How is anyone expected to respond publicly to such defamation of his character? But you’re right, of course, after reading your last post to Miguel Watler I have come to realize that "slander" is not the right word to use about your treatment of these individuals, character assassination is a much more appropriate term. To save members of the Juan Cole fan club the trouble of looking "character assassination" up in the dictionary, the definition goes as follows: Unfounded charges leveled to discredit individuals, usually in a hysteric atmosphere, resulting in damage to their reputation. Fabrication, distortion and sophistry are the tools of the trade. Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbles, believed that the bigger the lie, the more convincing it would be. Macchiavelli taught that the ends justify the means. Both "principles" are applied in character assassination. Dagur Nordberg >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 15, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: fw Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... -----Original Message----- From: JoySafari@aol.com To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 4:22 PM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... You know what? I think I'm finally getting it.... it's not that Juan spoke up and wrote about things that go against what some may call the Baha'i Party Line... it's because he used emotionally-charged and negative adjectives (and sometimes used inflammatory nouns).... and that although the adjectives may be defined and shown to have been used correctly... it was, however, because the adjectives he used are "emotionally charged" - and also can be viewed as a negative (i.e., downer OR oh Jeez, why'd you have to go and say the "Emporer had no clothes") that is why Juan was hustled out of the Faith. And I'm beginning to see why others that I know of ... gee, why that is exactly why they have been hustled out of the Faith! I'm serious. Plus our city has just completed a study on the Covenant given by Habib Riazati and I seem to be left with the impression that bringing out and making humans noble is the main purpose of religion. (Although he keeps spelling it 'nobel.') (Great deepening... I highly recommend it!) From previous Talisman discussion, Unity is more important than Truth within our guidelines for good consultation. So can we sum up then... it's Unity before Truth, Nobility above all, and use only bland adjectives whenever possible. Never, ever use negative, emotionally-charged adjectives. And you can score extra Baha'i points with those in power if you use warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives instead. I am also further understanding then that Truth is at the bottom of this whole list and that the warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives don't need to have much truth behind them, just as long as they are warm and fuzzy and feel good. So, with this important criteria for Baha'i worthiness, I think I need some scholarly backing here. Does anyone actually HAVE any scriptural references about "correct adjective usage?" Or really, I guess it could just fall under that "words as mild as milk" scriptural reference. Or maybe under "courtesy?" And so then - if that's the case - then, those "mildness" and "courtesy" references are higher on this "actual priority" list than even Unity. (Since, Juan and others broke the mildness rule and were then deemed disunifying.) And again... in our "actual" working list of "Baha'i worthiness criteria," Truth is on the bottom... and nearly irrelevant. (Oh sure. A few scriptures about honesty and truth here and there... possibly even in the Kitab-i-Aqdas right... but in actuality... in _actual_ promotion... Truth is nearly irrelevant when considering Baha'i worthiness and Truth is also usually a topic to be put on the back burner - if we ever get around to it at all.) Compliments > Mildness > Nobility > Unity > Truth And if you break the mildness (informal) commandment, you get hustled out of the Faith. (I chose "compliments" to represent the warm and fuzzy, feel-good adjectives.) With lots of adventurous Joy Similes, Marcella In a message dated 98-06-13 07:57:44 EDT, fglaysh@hotmail.com writes: >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >>If this were accurate, which I don't believe it is, I would have >>to say perhaps Juan has unwittingly been absorbing the tactics used by >>the moderators of srb and those of other Bahais during the last two >interest >>polls for talk.religion.bahai.... >> >>Are you concerned that I have been the victim of systematic attacks and >>character assassination by Bahais? > >No, frankly, I’m not, since I see no evidence of it. Are your eyes open? There's plenty of evidence on my web site under srb censorship.... On the contrary, in >the few posts I’ve seen that been directed to you by the moderators of >SRB and various other Baha’is you’ve been treated with courtesy and >patience. Their essentially banning me from posting to srb manifests patience and tolerance? As did the similarly deceitful actions of the BCCA? (of which evidence is also on my web site) Patience is a key word here, Fred - it sends a shiver up my >spine, I long to possess it and it constantly eludes me. You seem to >have problems with SRB being moderated and, generally speaking, having >to play by some set of rules. "You"? More than one person has had enough sense of mind to object to their censorship. Although I don’t follow the discussions on >SRB, I feel that Baha’is of all nationalities, classes and interests >have a perfect right to discuss matters of mutual interest in an >atmossphere of trust and compassion without being harrassed and vilified >by the chronically discontent, A Bahai code word/phrase that attempts to assassinate character and discredit anything the person might say that does not agree with the prevailing mentality.... Now who's assassinating character? You're guilty here of exactly what you charged Juan with, in my opinion.... having to put up with endless articles on >how microwave food is hurting you or wade through the infantile >meanderings of the latest manifestation of the Universal Expansion. > >DN Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> In a message dated 98-06-11 17:18:34 EDT, d_nordberg@hotmail.com writes: << posts are not private but are being forwarded all over the world they must be read by lots of people who know and respect you as a distuingished scholar and authority in your field, ready to take your word for anything, but who will have no clue as to the identity of those you so savagely beat upon in one post after another, branding them as "backbiters", "tinpot tyrants" etc. I used the word private because there are relatively few suscribers to these lists, most of them probably Baha’is, notoriously tolerant people, always willing to turn the other cheek if they can put in an instructive word edgewise between the blows. Also, and interestingly enough, no sign of the harsh rhetoric you use here can be found on your public homepages, which I frequently visit and thoroughly enjoy. What opened my eyes to the nature of the abuse was a remark you made, quite casually and in passing, in one of your posts (I don’t have the date since I don’t save e-mails), where you refer to a venerable and universally loved and respected Hand of the Cause, serving in Haifa, as a "bigot" without any attempt at clarification or explanation. I have never met the individuals you castigate here almost on a daily basis; however, I’ve met this particular Hand of the Cause, had the pleasure of conversing with him briefly and observed him on various occasions, and if he’s a bigot then I’m Catherine the Great of St. Petersburg. What problems are you trying to identify and fix by using such infamous epithets? How is anyone expected to respond publicly to such defamation of his character? But you’re right, of course, after reading your last post to Miguel Watler I have come to realize that "slander" is not the right word to use about your treatment of these individuals, character assassination is a much more appropriate term. To save members of the Juan Cole fan club the trouble of looking "character assassination" up in the dictionary, the definition goes as follows: Unfounded charges leveled to discredit individuals, usually in a hysteric atmosphere, resulting in damage to their reputation. Fabrication, distortion and sophistry are the tools of the trade. Hitler's propaganda minister, Goebbles, believed that the bigger the lie, the more convincing it would be. Macchiavelli taught that the ends justify the means. Both "principles" are applied in character assassination. Dagur Nordberg >> ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:14 AM Subject: Re: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" fyi -----Original Message----- From: Roman P. Storzer To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 10:57 AM Subject: Re: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >We are in the process of compiling religious liberty sites and documents on the >internet to create a valuable resource on this topic. I will include the site >you have referred me too. If you have any future information on >changes/additions, please let me know. > >Sincerely, >Roman P. Storzer > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's >> that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing >> newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of >> Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in >> which your organization can be of help in the defense of >> the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for >> Baha'is? >> >> After more than a year and a half of attempting to create an >> unmoderated forum on a Big 8 Usenet hierarchy, I and other >> Baha'is and non-Baha'is believe it is now imperative to >> appeal to other possibly interested organizations. >> >> Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >> that a new web site on the Baha'i Faith has been created, >> focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >> freedom of conscience commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site >> also includes extensive material relating to censorship on >> soc.religion.bahai and the two Usenet interest polls for >> talk.religion.bahai: >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> A mailing list has also been created for those without >> access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:21 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... >No, I don’t think you’ve got it. We are not conducting an exercise in >semantics here or engaging in a shouting match nor have I seen anyone >trying to score points with anybody, this is a forum for open honest >discourse and not a combat zone. Most of us are just seeking the plain >truth in the matter at hand, however inconvenient, unflattering and >painful it may be for us; if you feel you can aid us, please do so and >refrain from theatrics and melodrama in the interest of your cause, if >you have any. > >DN "Seeking the plain truth"? I don't think so.... Bill Hyman just committed a blatantly shameless act of censorship, dubbing it "consultation," by denying me the right to post to soc.religion.bahai, while most Bahais on talisman tacitly accepted and supported it.... God save us from such a "Bahai" future, here now.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:24 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... -----Original Message----- From: FG To: talisman Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:21 AM Subject: Re: uniting Talisman and Irfan/ Adjectives.... >>No, I don’t think you’ve got it. We are not conducting an exercise in >>semantics here or engaging in a shouting match nor have I seen anyone >>trying to score points with anybody, this is a forum for open honest >>discourse and not a combat zone. Most of us are just seeking the plain >>truth in the matter at hand, however inconvenient, unflattering and >>painful it may be for us; if you feel you can aid us, please do so and >>refrain from theatrics and melodrama in the interest of your cause, if >>you have any. >> >>DN > >"Seeking the plain truth"? I don't think so.... Bill Hyman just committed >a blatantly shameless act of censorship, dubbing it "consultation," by >denying me the right to post to soc.religion.bahai, while most Bahais >on talisman tacitly accepted and supported it.... God save us from such >a "Bahai" future, here now.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:28 AM To: Stanton McCandlish Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Thank you. I really appreciate any help or advice like this you can offer. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Stanton McCandlish To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Gilbert Rankin) Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:28 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >I don't slegal issue we can address here. However, I passed your notice >along to Declan McCullagh, who works with people to oppose "private sector >censorship" practices as well as govt. censorship, and who is in well with >a cadre of people who "mirror" material that is threatened with censorship, >replicating it on independent servers around the world so the censorship >fails. His address is declan@well.com > > >-- >Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org https://www.eff.org/~mech >Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation >voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) fax: +1 415 436 9333 >PGPfone: 204.253.162.21 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:29 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" -----Original Message----- From: Stanton McCandlish To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Gilbert Rankin) Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:28 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >I don't slegal issue we can address here. However, I passed your notice >along to Declan McCullagh, who works with people to oppose "private sector >censorship" practices as well as govt. censorship, and who is in well with >a cadre of people who "mirror" material that is threatened with censorship, >replicating it on independent servers around the world so the censorship >fails. His address is declan@well.com > > >-- >Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org https://www.eff.org/~mech >Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation >voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) fax: +1 415 436 9333 >PGPfone: 204.253.162.21 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:29 AM Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" -----Original Message----- From: Stanton McCandlish To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Gilbert Rankin) Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:28 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >I don't slegal issue we can address here. However, I passed your notice >along to Declan McCullagh, who works with people to oppose "private sector >censorship" practices as well as govt. censorship, and who is in well with >a cadre of people who "mirror" material that is threatened with censorship, >replicating it on independent servers around the world so the censorship >fails. His address is declan@well.com > > >-- >Stanton McCandlish mech@eff.org https://www.eff.org/~mech >Program Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation >voice: +1 415 436 9333 x105 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) fax: +1 415 436 9333 >PGPfone: 204.253.162.21 (1pm-8pm PT M-F) > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:32 AM To: billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED You should be permitted like all Bahais to insult and intimidate people whose opinions you loathe in secret and with impunity? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Bill Brewer Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 12:06 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED > > >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Bill Brewer >> To: Frederick Glaysher >> Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:55 PM >> Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >> >> >I went to your web site for the first time, and was astonished to find >> >links to Dale Grider's site and the Shia site, both dedicated to >> >attacking the Faith. External enemies are fine, remembering the old ward >> >heelers' maxim 'I don't care what you say about me, as long as you spell >> >my name right'. You, however, seem to be following an older philosophy, >> >that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. You would do well to remember >> >the old saying, that 'He who sups with the Devil must needs use a long >> >spoon'. >> > >> >I came to the Faith already long in the tooth (52). Now nearly 70, I >> >had long seen the necessity of discipline and order. Submitting to the >> >disciplines of the Faith was no problem to me. This discipline, this >> >self-restraint, was already internalised befor I met the Baha'is. So >> >the authority of the Universal House and other bodies is freedom for me, >> >not restriction. Didn't Hegel say that 'freedom is the recognition of >> >necessity' ?. You, I presume, were raised in the American milieu, a >> >society which overvalues the intellect and where the only shared value >> >is self-indulgence. It appears you have not yet freed yourself from >> >these influences. > >BB: Ah, my old curmudgeonly self got the better of me. Getting garrulous in >my dotage, I expect. But, to publish private correspondence without >permission....I can hear my old Dad now: 'Not done, Glaysher, dear fellow, >not done!' > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:44 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: anger and emotion -----Original Message----- From: Alison and Steve Marshall To: talisman@umich.edu Cc: Star Saffa Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:33 AM Subject: anger and emotion >Dear Star > >I had another thought about the bad reputation of anger Can anyone find the quotation from Abdu'l-Baha about anger being a good thing, serving good purposes? Can't remember where it is at the moment. Maybe in Bahai World Faith. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:50 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED -----Original Message----- From: FG To: billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 7:32 AM Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >You should be permitted like all Bahais to insult and >intimidate people whose opinions you loathe, in >secret and with impunity? > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Brewer >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 12:06 AM >Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED > > >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher wrote: >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Bill Brewer >>> To: Frederick Glaysher >>> Date: Sunday, June 14, 1998 7:55 PM >>> Subject: Re: fw Re: Where LIBERTY is LIMITED >>> >>> >I went to your web site for the first time, and was astonished to find >>> >links to Dale Grider's site and the Shia site, both dedicated to >>> >attacking the Faith. External enemies are fine, remembering the old ward >>> >heelers' maxim 'I don't care what you say about me, as long as you spell >>> >my name right'. You, however, seem to be following an older philosophy, >>> >that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. You would do well to remember >>> >the old saying, that 'He who sups with the Devil must needs use a long >>> >spoon'. >>> > >>> >I came to the Faith already long in the tooth (52). Now nearly 70, I >>> >had long seen the necessity of discipline and order. Submitting to the >>> >disciplines of the Faith was no problem to me. This discipline, this >>> >self-restraint, was already internalised befor I met the Baha'is. So >>> >the authority of the Universal House and other bodies is freedom for me, >>> >not restriction. Didn't Hegel say that 'freedom is the recognition of >>> >necessity' ?. You, I presume, were raised in the American milieu, a >>> >society which overvalues the intellect and where the only shared value >>> >is self-indulgence. It appears you have not yet freed yourself from >>> >these influences. >> >>BB: Ah, my old curmudgeonly self got the better of me. Getting garrulous >in >>my dotage, I expect. But, to publish private correspondence without >>permission....I can hear my old Dad now: 'Not done, Glaysher, dear fellow, >>not done!' >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 7:01 AM To: billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca Subject: Re: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Please email me again directly. -----Original Message----- From: Bill Brewer Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:42 PM Subject: Re: "Baha'i Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >> > >> >Frederick Glaysher wrote: > >(BB: peeled down to the undergarment of brevity) > >> > >> >> Because of the belief of many Baha'is and non-Bahai's >> >> that extensive censorship exists on the presently existing >> >> newsgroup soc.religion.bahai, at times compared to that of >> >> Scientology, I would like to know if there is any way in >> >> which your organization can be of help in the defense of >> >> the basic rights of religious freedom of conscience for >> >> Baha'is? > >BB: In my political life, I long ago learned, through personal experience, that >one can go to the well too often. People roll their eyes, muttering 'it's him >again', and his valuable words are lost..... > >> >> > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 7:48 AM To: declan@well.com Cc: Stanton McCandlish Subject: "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Dear Mr. McCullagh: Stanton McCandlish at the Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/ has mentioned your name to me as someone interested in freedom of speech and censorship. He has said, "As for advice, I'd just make sure your readers know what's going on, and have a contingency plan. Talk with Declan and his friends about pre-arranging mirrors in case something happens." I and other members of the Bahai'i Faith, as well as many non-Bahais, have been attempting to create an unmoderated newsgroup on one of the Big 8 hierarchies on Usenet for more than a year and a half now. I and others believe that the newsgroup soc.religion.bahai regularly imposes censorship of ideas on all postings to it, which parallels a general censorship of conscience throughout Baha'i publications and circles of influence. In May of this year, I created a Web site that thoroughly documents these beliefs and brings together for the first time major controversial documents that have either been suppressed in one way or another or have resulted in a number of people actually having been disciplined by the Baha'i administration or even literally thrown out of the religion. Many Baha'i academics at such institutions as the University of Michigan and Indiana University have been interferred with in very shocking ways. Recently, let me mention soc.religion.bahai has refused to post any messages from me that includes my signature file with links to my site, while one Baha'i has personally threatened me (happened several times now) from an email address the only other message from which he had ever posted being one commenting on how to send destructive email messages with viruses to wipe out people's hard drives. A brief look, if you would, at my site would provide you with further information on the basic issues regarding "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience": https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm I'd appreciate very much anything you might be able to do to help. The idea of "mirroring" the site so that it cannot be hit in some way with a virus or whatever is something I'd certainly welcome given how much time and effort I've put into creating it. Incidentally, there have been, since May 8th when I first put it up, over 1,400 hits on it, a rather high number for such a site and which reflects the concerns many people have for the lack of freedom of conscience in the Baha'i Faith. Thank you for your time. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > -----Original Message----- > From: Stanton McCandlish > To: Frederick Glaysher (by way of Gilbert Rankin) > Date: Monday, June 15, 1998 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > > > >I don't s[ee a] legal issue we can address here. However, I passed your notice > >along to Declan McCullagh, who works with people to oppose "private sector > >censorship" practices as well as govt. censorship, and who is in well with > >a cadre of people who "mirror" material that is threatened with censorship, > >replicating it on independent servers around the world so the censorship > >fails. His address is declan@well.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 7:58 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: anger and emotion -----Original Message----- From: Chris Manvell To: Talisman@umich.edu Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:43 PM Subject: Re: anger and emotion "In creation there is no evil; all is good." From a certain philosophical perspective only.... Tell that to a man with a knife in his back.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities in a right way, they are blameworthy. " ('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) "bloodthirsty tyrants"? "ferocious beasts"? Sounds like the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai.... "very praiseworthy"? Certainly nothing they nor other fanatics in the Bahai Faith would ever acknowledge.... Another one of the many ignored passages in the Writings.... All sounds right to me.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 1998 8:00 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: anger and emotion -----Original Message----- From: Chris Manvell To: Talisman@umich.edu Date: Tuesday, June 16, 1998 5:43 PM Subject: Re: anger and emotion >"In creation there is no evil; all is good." From a certain philosophical perspective only.... Tell that to a man with a knife in his back.... >"If he exercises his anger >and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious >beasts, it is very praiseworthy; but if he does not use these qualities >in a right way, they are blameworthy. " >('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) "bloodthirsty tyrants"? "ferocious beasts"? Sounds like the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai.... "very praiseworthy"? Certainly nothing they nor other fanatics in the Bahai Faith would ever acknowledge.... Another one of the many ignored passages in the Writings.... All sounds right to me.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 6:09 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added Some may be interested to know I've added a page to my web site of several representative pieces of Bahai hate mail I've received during the last year and a half. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 6:09 PM Subject: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added Some may be interested to know I've added a page to my web site of several representative pieces of Bahai hate mail I've received during the last year and a half. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 18, 1998 6:11 PM To: talisman Subject: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added Some may be interested to know I've added a page to my web site of several representative pieces of Bahai hate mail I've received during the last year and a half.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 8:07 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 8:11 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai as prelude to the third interest poll this fall: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 8:15 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 19, 1998 8:16 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 6:39 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: "The Faith is stagnant in Utah" (was Re: State of the Faith in Utah) Derrick wrote: >The Faith is stagnant in Utah.... Sounds like the Bahai Faith everywhere else too.... A small clique of Bahais, usually very literal minded, doing everything they can, ironically, to make sure no one enters the religion.... This too has been my experience and observation in three states and two countries.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 6:39 AM Subject: "The Faith is stagnant in Utah" (was Re: State of the Faith in Utah) Derrick wrote: >The Faith is stagnant in Utah.... Sounds like the Bahai Faith everywhere else too.... A small clique of Bahais, usually very literal minded, doing everything they can, ironically, to make sure no one enters the religion.... This too has been my experience and observation in three states and two countries.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM To: Milissa Boyer Kafes Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG May I repost your message for the benefit of others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais a lot.... -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >Hi Frederick-- > >you must have the thickest skin in the universe! > >Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and it >just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. > >Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just seem >so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me to >witness. > >Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your >webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a CB. >Maybe its time to move on. > >Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i > >Love >Milissa > >************************************************************************** >* ".....who could imagine..... >* >* that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * >* >* >* --Frank Zappa >* >************************************************************************** > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:21 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: More archived files on web page Several new archived files of talk.religion.bahai discussion have been added to my web page, under "trb, arb, bahai-discuss archives," up to February 28, 1998. I'd appreciate anyone letting me know if the server there is down: web4free. I may have to move them to another site.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:23 AM To: talisman Subject: More archived files on web site Several new archived files of talk.religion.bahai discussion have been added to my web page, under "trb, arb, bahai-discuss archives," up to February 28, 1998. I'd appreciate anyone letting me know if the server there is down: web4free. I may have to move them to another site.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:32 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Notifying srb posters of censorship I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning about the existence of my web site.... I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." ('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: Notifying srb posters of censorship I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning about the existence of my web site.... I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." ('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:33 AM To: talisman Subject: Notifying srb posters of censorship I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning about the existence of my web site.... I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." ('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG fyi -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >Hi Fred-- > >sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. > >Peace >MBK >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>a lot.... >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>Hi Frederick-- >>> >>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>> >>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >it >>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>> >>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just >seem >>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >to >>>witness. >>> >>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your >>>webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a >CB. >>>Maybe its time to move on. >>> >>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i >>> >>>Love >>>Milissa >>> >>>************************************************************************* * >>>* ".....who could imagine..... >>>* >>>* that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * >>>* >>>* >>>* --Frank Zappa >>>* >>>************************************************************************* * >>> >>> >>> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:15 AM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG fyi -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >Hi Fred-- > >sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. > >Peace >MBK >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>a lot.... >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>Hi Frederick-- >>> >>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>> >>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >it >>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>> >>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just >seem >>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >to >>>witness. >>> >>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your >>>webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a >CB. >>>Maybe its time to move on. >>> >>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i >>> >>>Love >>>Milissa >>> >>>************************************************************************* * >>>* ".....who could imagine..... >>>* >>>* that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * >>>* >>>* >>>* --Frank Zappa >>>* >>>************************************************************************* * >>> >>> >>> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:17 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG fyi -----Original Message----- From: Milissa Boyer Kafes To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >Hi Fred-- > >sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. > >Peace >MBK >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>a lot.... >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>To: Frederick Glaysher >>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>Hi Frederick-- >>> >>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>> >>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >it >>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>> >>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? I mean you just >seem >>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >to >>>witness. >>> >>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? If you are, I worry that your >>>webpage could get you into trouble. I don't want to see you declared a >CB. >>>Maybe its time to move on. >>> >>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i >>> >>>Love >>>Milissa >>> >>>************************************************************************* * >>>* ".....who could imagine..... >>>* >>>* that you would freak out, somewhere in Kansas......" * >>>* >>>* >>>* --Frank Zappa >>>* >>>************************************************************************* * >>> >>> >>> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:22 AM Subject: fw [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship fyi -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 9:25 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, >and they like it that way. >I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel >which has the name of >the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. > >Bill Hyman >___________ >>I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to >stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its >founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to >censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from >learning about the existence of my web site.... > >I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who >would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... > >Frederick Glaysher > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:24 AM To: talisman Subject: fw : [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship fyi -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: FG@hotmail.com Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 9:25 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship >Dear Mr. Glaysher: > >I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, >and they like it that way. >I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel >which has the name of >the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. > >Bill Hyman >___________ >>I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to >stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its >founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to >censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from >learning about the existence of my web site.... > >I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who >would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... > >Frederick Glaysher > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com > > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:28 AM To: talisman Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship >Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) wrote: >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher: >> >> I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, >> and they like it that way. >> I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel >> which has the name of >> the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. >> >> Bill Hyman > >I think Bill's losing the plot. The point, as I >always understood it, of the Baha'i Faith, was to >make the world a better place, to tell people that >God had sent a new manifestation, and to practice >His teaching of love and tolerance. But to Bill, it >has all shrunk down to a petty question of stopping >Baha'is reading covenant-breaking material - in spite >of the fact that the UHJ has said in writing that >Baha'is should not try to censor the CB'ers. Make no >mistake, Bill isn't simply 'shunning' the CB'ers, >he is trying to stop others from reading their >work. Why else would he object to posting links >that others COULD follow (but don't HAVE TO follow) >that contain references to CB material? All he is >authorised to do, as a Baha'i, is not read it >himself, yet he tries to stop others locating it >of their own free will. > >Instead of a gospel of love, it has become nothing >but a control-freak thing. > >-- >Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > >Utopia (n): The rule of law without the rule of lawyers. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:30 AM Subject: fw Re: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship fyi -----Original Message----- From: Ron House To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] FW: Notifying srb posters of censorship >Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) wrote: >> >> Dear Mr. Glaysher: >> >> I think most of the posters to soc.religion.bahai know that it is moderated, >> and they like it that way. >> I have an aversion to the posting of Covenant Breaker material on a channel >> which has the name of >> the Bahai Faith. As you know this has happened on this unmoderated channel. >> >> Bill Hyman > >I think Bill's losing the plot. The point, as I >always understood it, of the Baha'i Faith, was to >make the world a better place, to tell people that >God had sent a new manifestation, and to practice >His teaching of love and tolerance. But to Bill, it >has all shrunk down to a petty question of stopping >Baha'is reading covenant-breaking material - in spite >of the fact that the UHJ has said in writing that >Baha'is should not try to censor the CB'ers. Make no >mistake, Bill isn't simply 'shunning' the CB'ers, >he is trying to stop others from reading their >work. Why else would he object to posting links >that others COULD follow (but don't HAVE TO follow) >that contain references to CB material? All he is >authorised to do, as a Baha'i, is not read it >himself, yet he tries to stop others locating it >of their own free will. > >Instead of a gospel of love, it has become nothing >but a control-freak thing. > >-- >Ron House > house@usq.edu.au > >Utopia (n): The rule of law without the rule of lawyers. >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:00 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>Hi Fred-- >> >>sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. >> >>Peace >>MBK >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>>a lot.... >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>>To: Frederick Glaysher >>>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >>> >>> >>>>Hi Frederick-- >>>> >>>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>>> >>>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >>it >>>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>>> >>>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? How would my running away resolve the censorship and oppression visited upon other unsuspecting Bahais and non-Bahais? I consider it my duty, to Baha'u'llah, I might add, to save his religion from such misguided fanaticism.... I mean you just >>seem >>>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >>to >>>>witness. Rodin to Rilke: "To live is to suffer." A bracing, stoic philosophy, not unknown to religious texts, if people were allowed to say so.... Added yesterday to my web page: "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 >>>> >>>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? As far as I'm concerned I am. I haven't been notified to the contrary. One does wonder whether the Bahai Administration is full of the same ignorant fanatics that run soc.religion.bahai and are in such full force online here and elsewhere though.... It's difficult not to believe that the literal-minded do not reflect the wishes and desires of the Universal House of Justice.... Yet I hope otherwise.... If you are, I worry that your >>>>webpage could get you into trouble. Why should it? I'm only doing there what Abdu'l-Baha Himself respected and praised--practicing and defending the freedom and liberty of conscience that the Bahai Writings, if they mean anything whatsoever anymore, extol.... I don't want to see you declared a >>CB. I don't understand why anyone would think I'm a covenant breaker, or why they'd apparently hope the Universal House of Justice will soon declare me to be one.... I haven't attacked the covenant, nor the Bahai Administration.... I've attacked the ignorance at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere that pervades the Bahai Faith and substitutes for serious thought and discussion.... It has long seemed to me that such narrow mindedness is in danger of rendering the Bahai Writings completely irrelevant and meaningless as their obvious meanings are increasing drained away or replaced with the most conventional and stultifying interpretations.... >>>>Maybe its time to move on. Only on to the third interest poll and the creation of tolerance and respect among Bahais for other people's opinions.... Something completely lacking at soc.religion.bahai, especially in the case of Bill Hyman who has somehow managed to get himself on board there since last August, when he announced he was more than willing to censor me, and now has figured out a clever, specious, insidious way of doing so.... >>>> >>>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i I appreciate your sharing them with me and your courage in sharing them with others.... >>>> >>>>Love >>>>Milissa Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>Hi Fred-- >> >>sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. >> >>Peace >>MBK >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>>a lot.... >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>>To: Frederick Glaysher >>>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >>> >>> >>>>Hi Frederick-- >>>> >>>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>>> >>>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >>it >>>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>>> >>>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? How would my running away resolve the censorship and oppression visited upon other unsuspecting Bahais and non-Bahais? I consider it my duty, to Baha'u'llah, I might add, to save his religion from such misguided fanaticism.... I mean you just >>seem >>>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >>to >>>>witness. Rodin to Rilke: "To live is to suffer." A bracing, stoic philosophy, not unknown to religious texts, if people were allowed to say so.... Added yesterday to my web page: "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 >>>> >>>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? As far as I'm concerned I am. I haven't been notified to the contrary. One does wonder whether the Bahai Administration is full of the same ignorant fanatics that run soc.religion.bahai and are in such full force online here and elsewhere though.... It's difficult not to believe that the literal-minded do not reflect the wishes and desires of the Universal House of Justice.... Yet I hope otherwise.... If you are, I worry that your >>>>webpage could get you into trouble. Why should it? I'm only doing there what Abdu'l-Baha Himself respected and praised--practicing and defending the freedom and liberty of conscience that the Bahai Writings, if they mean anything whatsoever anymore, extol.... I don't want to see you declared a >>CB. I don't understand why anyone would think I'm a covenant breaker, or why they'd apparently hope the Universal House of Justice will soon declare me to be one.... I haven't attacked the covenant, nor the Bahai Administration.... I've attacked the ignorance at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere that pervades the Bahai Faith and substitutes for serious thought and discussion.... It has long seemed to me that such narrow mindedness is in danger of rendering the Bahai Writings completely irrelevant and meaningless as their obvious meanings are increasing drained away or replaced with the most conventional and stultifying interpretations.... >>>>Maybe its time to move on. Only on to the third interest poll and the creation of tolerance and respect among Bahais for other people's opinions.... Something completely lacking at soc.religion.bahai, especially in the case of Bill Hyman who has somehow managed to get himself on board there since last August, when he announced he was more than willing to censor me, and now has figured out a clever, specious, insidious way of doing so.... >>>> >>>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i I appreciate your sharing them with me and your courage in sharing them with others.... >>>> >>>>Love >>>>Milissa Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:02 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG fyi >-----Original Message----- >From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >To: Frederick Glaysher >Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 10:13 PM >Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG > > >>Hi Fred-- >> >>sure you can post it if you really think it would help anything. >> >>Peace >>MBK >>-----Original Message----- >>From: FG >>To: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 7:04 AM >>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >> >> >>>May I repost your message for the benefit of >>>others? I believe it could help both Bahais and non-Bahais >>>a lot.... >>> >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Milissa Boyer Kafes >>>To: Frederick Glaysher >>>Date: Thursday, June 18, 1998 7:58 PM >>>Subject: Re: "Bahai Hate Mail" page added PRIVATE MSG >>> >>> >>>>Hi Frederick-- >>>> >>>>you must have the thickest skin in the universe! >>>> >>>>Anyway, I don't know why you bother. For me, I have posted a couple of >>>>times on soc.religion.bahai and have gotten a couple of nasty emails and >>it >>>>just ruins my whole day! If I were you I would have given up. >>>> >>>>Don't you think you would be happier as a non-Baha'i? How would my running away resolve the censorship and oppression visited upon other unsuspecting Bahais and non-Bahais? I consider it my duty, to Baha'u'llah, I might add, to save his religion from such misguided fanaticism.... I mean you just >>seem >>>>so hurt and angry all the time. I can relate to that. It just hurts me >>to >>>>witness. Rodin to Rilke: "To live is to suffer." A bracing, stoic philosophy, not unknown to religious texts, if people were allowed to say so.... Added yesterday to my web page: "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 >>>> >>>>Btw, are you officially still a Baha'i? As far as I'm concerned I am. I haven't been notified to the contrary. One does wonder whether the Bahai Administration is full of the same ignorant fanatics that run soc.religion.bahai and are in such full force online here and elsewhere though.... It's difficult not to believe that the literal-minded do not reflect the wishes and desires of the Universal House of Justice.... Yet I hope otherwise.... If you are, I worry that your >>>>webpage could get you into trouble. Why should it? I'm only doing there what Abdu'l-Baha Himself respected and praised--practicing and defending the freedom and liberty of conscience that the Bahai Writings, if they mean anything whatsoever anymore, extol.... I don't want to see you declared a >>CB. I don't understand why anyone would think I'm a covenant breaker, or why they'd apparently hope the Universal House of Justice will soon declare me to be one.... I haven't attacked the covenant, nor the Bahai Administration.... I've attacked the ignorance at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere that pervades the Bahai Faith and substitutes for serious thought and discussion.... It has long seemed to me that such narrow mindedness is in danger of rendering the Bahai Writings completely irrelevant and meaningless as their obvious meanings are increasing drained away or replaced with the most conventional and stultifying interpretations.... >>>>Maybe its time to move on. Only on to the third interest poll and the creation of tolerance and respect among Bahais for other people's opinions.... Something completely lacking at soc.religion.bahai, especially in the case of Bill Hyman who has somehow managed to get himself on board there since last August, when he announced he was more than willing to censor me, and now has figured out a clever, specious, insidious way of doing so.... >>>> >>>>Just some thoughts from a sympathetic Baha'i I appreciate your sharing them with me and your courage in sharing them with others.... >>>> >>>>Love >>>>Milissa Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 8:45 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 8th archive added I've added an 8th archive to my web site, 1.2 megabytes. It ranges from March 1 to April 30, 1998. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:06 AM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Who is a Covenant Breaker? Your message was lost somehow in cyberspace and did not appear on bahai-faith. -----Original Message----- From: Michela To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: alt.religion.bahai@findmail.com Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:05 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Who is a Covenant Breaker? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:17 AM To: Ron House; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw Ron House Re: Freedom of Choice George & Marlena wrote in message <6mosau$j6q$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Friends, >It is my opinion that the American constitution, and the Bill of rights is >about freedom and the guarantee of rights in the United States. >I fail to understand how the practices of SRB are in any way contrary to >that which is written in the constitution or for that matter, are any >different from any major newspaper in the US. We are free to write and say >ANYTHING we want. Newspapers and newsrooms are not required to print it. >Surely educated people know that the major newspapers are all predisposed to >advance their own particular point of viewand not the view of others. Its >their newspaper; they can >print what they want. I assume the "owners" of SRB have the same freedom. As >a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. > >As a consumer, I welcome the choice that is offered to me on T.V., in the >news, and online. I can choose to participate in newsgroup activity in the >newsgroup that most closely matches my own personal interests. When I buy a >magazine about recreational vehicles, as a consumer I don't want to read >about airplanes. They are fine things, but I am not interested in them or >anything about them. Likewise when I chose Soc.Religion.Bahai as my >newsgroup of preference it is because it prints those things in which I am >most interested, and it does NOT allow those things in which I am not >interested. It tends to be more on the positive, constructive side of >things. When I want to read about dark forces in the world today, I can >choose to find a newsgroup that promotes those things. When I want to read >positive constructive things from positive constructive people I can choose >SRB. I have that freedom. I chose to write here today, just as you chose to >read here. >When all newsgroups are required to print everything that is submitted to >them, I loose the freedom of choice, because then all the groups would be >all the same. I vote to keep the freedom of choice. > >PostOn. >George > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:17 AM Subject: fw Ron House Re: Freedom of Choice George & Marlena wrote in message <6mosau$j6q$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Friends, >It is my opinion that the American constitution, and the Bill of rights is >about freedom and the guarantee of rights in the United States. >I fail to understand how the practices of SRB are in any way contrary to >that which is written in the constitution or for that matter, are any >different from any major newspaper in the US. We are free to write and say >ANYTHING we want. Newspapers and newsrooms are not required to print it. >Surely educated people know that the major newspapers are all predisposed to >advance their own particular point of viewand not the view of others. Its >their newspaper; they can >print what they want. I assume the "owners" of SRB have the same freedom. As >a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. > >As a consumer, I welcome the choice that is offered to me on T.V., in the >news, and online. I can choose to participate in newsgroup activity in the >newsgroup that most closely matches my own personal interests. When I buy a >magazine about recreational vehicles, as a consumer I don't want to read >about airplanes. They are fine things, but I am not interested in them or >anything about them. Likewise when I chose Soc.Religion.Bahai as my >newsgroup of preference it is because it prints those things in which I am >most interested, and it does NOT allow those things in which I am not >interested. It tends to be more on the positive, constructive side of >things. When I want to read about dark forces in the world today, I can >choose to find a newsgroup that promotes those things. When I want to read >positive constructive things from positive constructive people I can choose >SRB. I have that freedom. I chose to write here today, just as you chose to >read here. >When all newsgroups are required to print everything that is submitted to >them, I loose the freedom of choice, because then all the groups would be >all the same. I vote to keep the freedom of choice. > >PostOn. >George > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:26 AM Subject: fw Mesbah Javid Re: Freedom of Choice -----Original Message----- From: Mesbah Javid To: Ron House Cc: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 2:15 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice > > > "In the Kitab-i-Aqdas Baha'u'llah states: "We approve > of liberty in certain circumstances, and refuse to sanction > it in other." One area in which LIBERTY is LIMITED in the > Baha'i community is that governing methods and channels > for the expression of CRITICISM..." > > -The Universal House of Justice, letter > dated 2 July 1996 to an individual believer >-- > > >Kindest regards, >Mesbah Javid mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca >_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ >"The second danger, which may be as insidious, is that of >spiritual pride and arrogance. Baha'i scholars, especially >those who are scholars in the teachings and history of the >Faith itself, would be well advised to remember that scholars >have often been MOST WRONG when they have been MOST CERTAIN >that they were right. The virtues of moderation, humility >and humor in regard to one's own work and ideas are a potent >protection against this danger." -UHJ 1 Oct. 1978 >_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > >On Wed, 24 Jun 1998, Ron House wrote: > >> Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:45:32 +1000 >> From: Ron House >> Reply-To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice >> >> When I saw the following article I just had to respond, as >> it betrays serious mistakes about the Internet and also the >> Baha'i Faith. >> >> George & Marlena wrote: >> >> > I fail to understand how the practices of S.R.B. are in any way contrary to >> > that which is written in the constitution or for that matter, are any >> > different from any major newspaper in the US. >> >> True. The US constitution guarantees that governments won't >> censor people, it doesn't compel everyone to reproduce >> everything anyone else says. >> >> > We are free to write and say >> > ANYTHING we want. Newspapers and newsrooms are not required to print it. >> > Surely educated people know that the major newspapers are all predisposed to >> > advance their own particular point of viewand not the view of others. Its >> > their newspaper; they can print what they want. I assume the "owners" of SRB >> > have the same freedom. >> >> Here is the main error, and it is a serious one. The owners of >> a newspaper own it because they purchased it; they buy the ink >> and the presses and the paper and pay the writers, etc. etc. >> The Internet is not owned by Baha'is or the Baha'i Faith; it is >> carried free of charge by, and at the expense of, a variety of >> secular, business, educational, and even religious organisations >> who store it on their computers and transmit it at their own >> expense. These people have collectively said "Okay, we will GIVE >> our resources to any group who have a charter and who get X >> votes from other users." In other words, SRB (and all other >> Internet newsgroups) are a gift to the users from the carriers. >> >> This raises some serious issues. First, ANY moderator of a NG >> has a responsibility to stick to the charter under which the NG >> was founded, as that is the basis of the gift; if I give money >> to a charity and find it is used by the collector to gamble or >> drink, I have a legitimate reason for complaint. The charter of >> SRB states that the NG is open to ALL comment on the Baha'i Faith >> except for covenant-breaking, provided it is civil and doesn't >> attack persons as individuals. Violating that charter is accepting >> a gift under false pretences, and is immoral, especially for >> Baha'is, given Baha'u'llah's high standard of truthfulness. It >> is absurdly easy to produce examples of postings that easily >> pass the test in the charter of SRB and which have been rejected >> by the moderators. Each such rejection is immoral on both secular >> and Baha'i standards. >> >> Second, by accepting this gift and using it as an instrument for >> propagating the Baha'i Faith, Baha'is are using a secular >> contribution to do the work of the Faith, which should rightly >> be paid for by Baha'i funds. This violates Baha'u'llah's >> proscription against accepting contributions from non-Baha'is. >> >> > As >> > a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >> > publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >> > Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. >> >> But as these are non-Baha'i funds, you should clearly think >> again, no? And as a second thought: who are YOU to decide >> what is contrary to the Baha'i teachings? One of the >> fundamental principles of your religion is that you have >> no right to rule on this question (issue authoritative >> interpretations). Every time you support a decision that >> a certain view should be suppressed because it is against your >> interpretation, you make your own words authoritative and >> you commit a worse sin than any of the people you criticise. >> >> > When all newsgroups are required to print everything that is submitted to >> > them, I loose the freedom of choice, because then all the groups would be >> > all the same. I vote to keep the freedom of choice, and S.R.B. >> >> No one is suggesting that all NGs print everything they >> receive. We are suggesting that SRB should obey its own >> charter, and that there be ANOTHER channel that has no >> moderator. Surely THAT is freedom of choice; a choice >> of 1 isn't a choice at all. >> >> -- >> Ron House >> house@usq.edu.au >> ---- >> List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> -- >> Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:27 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Freedom of Choice -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Cromer Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 4:26 PM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice >In article <6mosau$j6q$1@news.eli.net> George & Marlena, geomar@ctaz.com >writes: >>I assume the "owners" of SRB have the same freedom. As >>a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >>publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >>Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. > >One difference is that the "owners" of S.R.B do not own Usenet nor the >thousands of computers they host s.r.b on. > >Matthew Cromer ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:29 AM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice George & Marlena wrote in message <6mp901$855$1@news.eli.net>... > >Matthew Cromer wrote in message : >> >>One difference is that the "owners" of S.R.B do not own Usenet nor the >>thousands of computers they host s.r.b on. >> >>Matthew Cromer > >Sorry Mattew, I can be obtuse sometimes. I don't follow what you mean to >say. I was not referring to Usenet nor the thousands of computers that host >S.R.B. >I agree with your statement but I'm not sure about your meaning. I was not >aware of members of the Baha'i Faith trying to censor Usenet. You may find incontestable evidence of censorship on my web site, specifically srb censorship at: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > >PostOn. >George > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:31 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Fw: Freedom of Choice -----Original Message----- From: YU ZIR Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 7:26 PM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice I agree with George that SRB should not have to post anything its moderators don't wish to post. I'll go even farther. They should not even be asked to do so. But SRB should be honest about its policies. If they don't wish to publish material from (or even relating to) CBs, or whomever else, they should just say so, in their policy, their charter, or whatever. In my case, I was left feeling that I had been jerked around. I was asked to "re-word" my submission on what I felt were specious grounds, when in fact it was my defense of St Paul against unjust accusations (I had seen posted in SRB) that was the real problem. In the few interchanges I had with Bill H, I found him to possess a politically correct humorlessness (IMHO), with which I could not establish any rapport despite my best efforts. Lighten up, Bill! I must say that SRB is the nicest NG I've ever been kicked out of. I just wish they had done it without jerking me around first. ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:43 AM To: talisman Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice George & Marlena wrote in message <6mosau$j6q$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Friends, >It is my opinion that the American constitution, and the Bill of rights is >about freedom and the guarantee of rights in the United States. >I fail to understand how the practices of SRB are in any way contrary to >that which is written in the constitution or for that matter, are any >different from any major newspaper in the US. Srb subverts the constitution on a regular basis. It denies people the right to state their views for the most trivial and deceitful reasons. Numerous messages and evidence attesting to this fact about srb can be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm We are free to write and say >ANYTHING we want. False. Not on srb. Look at the messages regarding the suppression of my signature file on srb or my rejected message to William Collins. There are many other instances of srb duplicity.... Newspapers and newsrooms are not required to print it. Every hear of letters to the Editor? Opposing Views etc? Not on srb, the propaganda vehicle for fundamentalist Bahais.... >Surely educated people know that the major newspapers are all predisposed to >advance their own particular point of viewand not the view of others. Your whole newspaper analogy is irrelevant to srb and the tyranny with which it is controlled and run.... Its >their newspaper; they can >print what they want. I assume the "owners" of SRB have the same freedom. As >a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. Rather, the fanatics in the Bahai Faith are expropriating the resources of free institutions to silence any view they don't like and prevent Bahais from even hearing about the existence of my web site which thoroughly documents the lies and censorship practiced at srb.... > >As a consumer, I welcome the choice that is offered to me on T.V., in the >news, and online. I can choose to participate in newsgroup activity in the >newsgroup that most closely matches my own personal interests. When I buy a >magazine about recreational vehicles, as a consumer I don't want to read >about airplanes. They are fine things, but I am not interested in them or >anything about them. Likewise when I chose Soc.Religion.Bahai as my >newsgroup of preference it is because it prints those things in which I am >most interested, and it does NOT allow those things in which I am not >interested. It tends to be more on the positive, constructive side of >things. When I want to read about dark forces in the world today, I can >choose to find a newsgroup that promotes those things. When I want to read >positive constructive things from positive constructive people I can choose >SRB. I have that freedom. I chose to write here today, just as you chose to >read here. >When all newsgroups are required to print everything that is submitted to >them, I loose the freedom of choice, because then all the groups would be >all the same. I vote to keep the freedom of choice. Your arguments are transparent to anyone who has followed along for any amount of time. Those new here might wish to look at the many, many messages on my web site from the past, some very recent, that document the censorship and suppression at srb. > >PostOn. >George > > > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 8:43 AM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice George & Marlena wrote in message <6mosau$j6q$1@news.eli.net>... >Dear Friends, >It is my opinion that the American constitution, and the Bill of rights is >about freedom and the guarantee of rights in the United States. >I fail to understand how the practices of SRB are in any way contrary to >that which is written in the constitution or for that matter, are any >different from any major newspaper in the US. Srb subverts the constitution on a regular basis. It denies people the right to state their views for the most trivial and deceitful reasons. Numerous messages and evidence attesting to this fact about srb can be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm We are free to write and say >ANYTHING we want. False. Not on srb. Look at the messages regarding the suppression of my signature file on srb or my rejected message to William Collins. There are many other instances of srb duplicity.... Newspapers and newsrooms are not required to print it. Every hear of letters to the Editor? Opposing Views etc? Not on srb, the propaganda vehicle for fundamentalist Bahais.... >Surely educated people know that the major newspapers are all predisposed to >advance their own particular point of viewand not the view of others. Your whole newspaper analogy is irrelevant to srb and the tyranny with which it is controlled and run.... Its >their newspaper; they can >print what they want. I assume the "owners" of SRB have the same freedom. As >a Baha'i I am glad that my contributions to the fund are not being wasted >publicizing points of view that are contrary to the teachings of the Baha'i >Faith. I am also glad that I don't have to read it. Rather, the fanatics in the Bahai Faith are expropriating the resources of free institutions to silence any view they don't like and prevent Bahais from even hearing about the existence of my web site which thoroughly documents the lies and censorship practiced at srb.... > >As a consumer, I welcome the choice that is offered to me on T.V., in the >news, and online. I can choose to participate in newsgroup activity in the >newsgroup that most closely matches my own personal interests. When I buy a >magazine about recreational vehicles, as a consumer I don't want to read >about airplanes. They are fine things, but I am not interested in them or >anything about them. Likewise when I chose Soc.Religion.Bahai as my >newsgroup of preference it is because it prints those things in which I am >most interested, and it does NOT allow those things in which I am not >interested. It tends to be more on the positive, constructive side of >things. When I want to read about dark forces in the world today, I can >choose to find a newsgroup that promotes those things. When I want to read >positive constructive things from positive constructive people I can choose >SRB. I have that freedom. I chose to write here today, just as you chose to >read here. >When all newsgroups are required to print everything that is submitted to >them, I loose the freedom of choice, because then all the groups would be >all the same. I vote to keep the freedom of choice. Your arguments are transparent to anyone who has followed along for any amount of time. Those new here might wish to look at the many, many messages on my web site from the past, some very recent, that document the censorship and suppression at srb. > >PostOn. >George > > > Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:01 AM To: Cal rollins Subject: Re: Where is the new list? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Cal rollins To: talisman@umich.edu Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 2:33 PM Subject: Where is the new list? ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:19 AM To: darricke@hotmail.com Subject: Re: "Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome" darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6mpiij$efp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >Darrick: Very true. Baha'u'llah called them the Pupil of the Eye. The Bab >bought and sold them outright. I don't know if Baha'u'llah bought any >outright (He inherited a few black slaves), but He did sold one to a guy He >owned money too. It wasn't until 1874 that Baha'is couldn't own black slaves >anymore. The Bab never forbad black slavery, but He and His family >participated in it (woops--wasn't supposed to let that cat out of the bag!). The Bab and Baha'u'llah OWNED slaves? News to me.... What's your source? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:19 AM Subject: Re: "Post Traumatic Slave Syndrome" darricke@hotmail.com wrote in message <6mpiij$efp$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >Darrick: Very true. Baha'u'llah called them the Pupil of the Eye. The Bab >bought and sold them outright. I don't know if Baha'u'llah bought any >outright (He inherited a few black slaves), but He did sold one to a guy He >owned money too. It wasn't until 1874 that Baha'is couldn't own black slaves >anymore. The Bab never forbad black slavery, but He and His family >participated in it (woops--wasn't supposed to let that cat out of the bag!). The Bab and Baha'u'llah OWNED slaves? News to me.... What's your source? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 3:32 PM To: talisman Subject: Juan's double standard? >Juan wrote: > >This was why I made the rule that on Talisman we are to respect each >other's basic sincerity and motives, despite all our differences. It is >the only way to have a cyber-community that is at all useful. So, I'd like >to remind everyone that bringing the other person's character into it is >off-limits. Reply to arguments, please. Does this include your comments about Susan Maneck, for which you've never apologized that I know? Or is there to be a double standard on talisman? Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 3:37 PM Subject: fw LaAeterna Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice >George, >Although it is true that many newspapers print only that which is most >conducive to promoting their points of view, it is also true that that is >considered questionable journalistic ethics and raises a variety of issues >which are constantly being debated within that arena. >SRB is a decent forum, if one understands that there are absolutely no >variances allowed in the discussions. Unless this is advertised and posted, >the people who come online to read what is posted do no understand that what >they are reading there is but one facet of a multi faceted diamond. And that >the facet is not necessarily reflective of the whole truth, but only a partial >aspect of that truth, which has been carefully moderated and tailored by a few >people whose understanding of the Teachings is mediocre at best, in many >cases. >A case in point: I recently wrote a post in response to Maryam's many posts >regarding the station of Baha'u'llah as the Last Prophet before Jufgment Day, >which she , as a Muslim, felt some disagreement with as a concept. Many >Baha'is believe that Baha'u'llah signifies the utlimate Manifestation and that >1000 years or more must pass before another Revelation. I pointed out that in >Gleanings, Baha'u'llah refers to Himself as the 'second blast of the Trumpet," >referrring to the Quranic prophecies about the End; after Him, therefore, >according to the Quran, must come Judgment Day and THEN the return of >Muhammad, or another Manifestation. Baha'u'llah refers many times to another >coming directly after HIm, completing a tripartite vs a dual Revelation. This >would mean that the beginning of the 1000 years, which is NOT indicated in the >prophecy, would have to be AFTER the completion of the Revelation, and NOT >after the death of Baha'u'llah (or whatever other date Baha'is have decided to >attribute to it). >This post was rejected because it didn't agree with current mainstream Baha'i >thinking, even though I gave references which they could look up. To me this >is more than simply censorhip, this is narrowing the field of thinking to that >of a few semi-ignorant, arrogant ding dongs who don't read the teachings, have >very little depth of understanding and who are simply interested in toeing the >line, so to speak. >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 3:40 PM Subject: fw LaAeterna2 Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 9:52 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Freedom of Choice >Mesbah Javid quotes a release from the Universal House stating that liberty is >limited by them in the area of "criticism." The rest of the quote has not >been given. If that is the main thrust, though, of the message, I have a >real problem. The domain of the Universal House of Justice is legislative, >and legislative only. I quiote, again, from Abdul'Baha: >"All of the civic affairs and the legislation of material laws for the >increasing needs of the enlightened humanity, belong to the House of Justice. >This, the House of Justice, will be not only a body for the legislation of >laws according to the spirit and requirement of the time, but a board of >arbitration (my note: a board of arbitration is NOT a judicial body, not a >court of justice, but only functions as an arbitrator of disputes) for the >settlement of all disputes arising between peoples...The Universal House of >Justice HAS ONLY LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION; the executive power belongs to the >administrative department of government...Again, I repeat, the House of >Justice, whether National or Universal, has only legislative power, and not >executive power..." Abdul'Baha cited in Star of the West, vol. 7, No. 15. >It occurs to me that either the Baha'is are not reading all of the teachings >available to them very carefully, or perhaps they are accepting predigested >pap as gospel. I refer specifically to a two-volume set called, I think, >something like "Compilation of compilations" or something like that. I have a >friend whose Baha'i library pretty much consisted of just that one book; >whenever he wanted to find something he would look it up in the index and >presto-pronto, the editor's idea of the appropriate quote to cover that area >was there for him to peruse. He had absolutely no idea that many were taken >out of context, that if one read further in the original text one would find a >great deal more depth and perhaps a completely contradictory concept >presented; he simply lived his faith according to these editors. >I don't think anyone who has read the WT carefully, along with the other texts >revealed about the domain of the Universal House, would be complaisant about >any open statement of their right to censor anyone, or limit their freedom of >thought or speech. They simply do not have any such authority. >Nancy > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 6:47 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? Juan wrote: >Dear Fred: > >I believe in free speech and in holding people accountable for their >actions. I therefore am very reluctant to have a rule on talisman that >*nobody* can be criticized (which tends to be the rule on most Baha'i lists >except that somehow it remains perfectly acceptable to criticize Baha'i >liberals). But you can't have a cyber-community if the *posters* flame >each other. So I'm the horrible flamer.... Isn't that changing the subject? Or at least accepting the character assassination, when it suits your needs, so successfully accomplished by the legions of the literal-minded.... > >The rule on Talisman is that we don't insult the character of other >subscribers to Talisman. Subscription creates the community of discourse. >You can say what you like about Boris Yeltsin, Slobodan Milosevic, and for >all I care, Susan Maneck. She is not on talisman. I've already explained >this to you before and wish you would give it a rest. I'm not interested in joining or creating a faction against the fundamentalist Bahais or the administration or Susan Maneck.... You wish I'd give it a rest because you're being unfair and trying to change the subject. That it's acceptable to flame her since she's not on talisman, let's see, would that perhaps be backbiting? Or sophistry? What all the horrible administrators did to you? (Some of them are horrible, though, of course, and idiots....) You jumped all over me, Juan, when I made a slip of the keyboard with Wade.... What purposes of yours did that serve? But you want everyone to lockstep behind you.... Very typical of the academic liberal milieu--oppressive, really.... No better than the conservatives, secular or Bahai.... As I've told you in the past, it's obvious you run talisman for your own purposes since it's almost as tightly censored and controlled as srb.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >As for apologies, I won't go into what happened between us. But she is the >one who owes me an apology, and I think she knows it. > >cheers Juan > > > > >At 03:32 PM 6/24/98 -0400, Frederick Glaysher wrote: >>>Juan wrote: >>> >>>This was why I made the rule that on Talisman we are to respect each >>>other's basic sincerity and motives, despite all our differences. It is >>>the only way to have a cyber-community that is at all useful. So, I'd like >>>to remind everyone that bringing the other person's character into it is >>>off-limits. Reply to arguments, please. >> >> >>Does this include your comments about Susan Maneck, for >>which you've never apologized that I know? Or is there to be a double >>standard on talisman? >> >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >> > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 7:39 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: BULK EMAIL> soc.religion.bahai I am looking for someone willing to bulk email all people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 to inform them of the existence of my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" and the unmoderated mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com. In an effort to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from even learning or hearing about their existence, the moderators are now censoring all messages from me that have my signature file as given below. This has been discussed for sometime on alt.religion.bahai and many relevant messages can now be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Some readers of news.groups might recall the fanaticism with which the interest polls for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai were opposed twice in the past by Bahais.... I believe this new censorship is being imposed in opposition to the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai late this summer or early fall.... I would appreciate any help or advice, on bulk mailing, or otherwise. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: BULK EMAIL> soc.religion.bahai I am looking for someone willing to bulk email all people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 to inform them of the existence of my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" and the unmoderated mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com. In an effort to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from even learning or hearing about their existence, the moderators are now censoring all messages from me that have my signature file as given below. This has been discussed for sometime on alt.religion.bahai and many relevant messages can now be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Some readers of news.groups might recall the fanaticism with which the interest polls for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai were opposed twice in the past by Bahais.... I believe this new censorship is being imposed in opposition to the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai late this summer or early fall.... I would appreciate any help or advice, on bulk mailing, or otherwise. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:23 AM Subject: Re: Frederick Glaysher - King O' Spam Note "someone" most likely was a Bahai, who deleted my signature file as well when posting to news.groups. Here's my original message, which is not off topic for news.groups: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Monday, June 22, 1998 8:32 AM Subject: Notifying srb posters of censorship >I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would >be willing to stripmine all the address for posters to >soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 and inform >them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to censor my >signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from learning >about the existence of my web site.... > >I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who >would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... > >"If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty >tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." >('Abdu'l-Bahá: Some Answered Questions, page 215) > > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > Someone wrote in message <199806221757.TAA05751@basement.replay.com>... > Notifying srb posters of censorship > > By Frederick Glaysher > > I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to > stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its > founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to > censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from > learning about the existence of my web site.... > > I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who > would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... > > Frederick Glaysher ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:27 AM Subject: Re: Frederick Glaysher - King O' Spam It's my post. Here's the version I attempted to post to news.groups yesterday though don't see a copy of it this morining on my server: -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups,talk.religion.misc Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 7:39 AM Subject: BULK EMAIL> soc.religion.bahai >I am looking for someone willing to bulk email all people who have >posted to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 to inform them >of the existence of my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious >Freedom of Conscience" and the unmoderated mailing list >bahai-faith@makelist.com. > >In an effort to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from even learning >or hearing about their existence, the moderators are now censoring all >messages from me that have my signature file as given below. This has >been discussed for sometime on alt.religion.bahai and many relevant >messages can now be found on my web site at > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm > >Some readers of news.groups might recall the fanaticism with which >the interest polls for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai were opposed >twice in the past by Bahais.... I believe this new censorship is being >imposed in opposition to the approaching third interest poll for >talk.religion.bahai late this summer or early fall.... > >I would appreciate any help or advice, on bulk mailing, or >otherwise. > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > Emma Pease wrote in message ... >In article <199806221757.TAA05751@basement.replay.com>, Someone wrote: >>> Notifying srb posters of censorship >>> >>> By Frederick Glaysher >>> >>> I'm looking for someone with bulk mail software who would be willing to >>> stripmine all the address for posters to soc.religion.bahai since its >>> founding in 1992 and inform them of the act of the moderator Bill Hyman to >>> censor my signature file, apparently in order to prevent them from >>> learning about the existence of my web site.... >>> >>> I'd appreciate hearing from any Bahai or non-Bahai who >>> would be willing to lend a hand in this regard.... >>> >>> Frederick Glaysher > >Great! we now have anonymous allegations with no evidence at all to >support it. Before I will give this cowardly attack one iota of >credence I would like to know > >1. Where was this alleged article posted >2. Full headers >3. Some evidence that the real Frederick Glaysher is connected to the > post >4. A real name behind the person posting the allegation > >Until then I can only treat this as evidence of an attack on Frederick >Glaysher. > >Emma > >-- >\---- >|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster >|_\/ emma@csli.stanford.edu Die Luft der Freiheit weht ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Frederick Glaysher - King O' Spam Guy Macon wrote in message <6mn6se$mrj$1@news01.deltanet.com>... >I might add that, even if true, this is OFF TOPIC in news.groups. >news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, news.admin.net-abuse.email and >news.admin.net-abuse.misc are the proper places to discuss such >things. News.groups is for newsgroup proposals. Take it elsewhere. This is not off topic. The imposition of censoring my signature file is directed by the srb moderators at the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. Since I've created a web site and a mailing list that help somewhat to get around their censorship, they realize they've lost some small amount of advantage they used successfully during the last two polls., i.e., their ability to prevent Bahais from even hearing of the polls taking place or discussing it in any way on soc.religion.bahai. By preventing me from posting to soc.religion.bahai using the signature file I use below they're depriving me of what is a commonly accepted usage all over Usenet. They have and are permitting other Bahais that share their views to post with any signature file they wish. Again, that's clearly aimed at the third interest poll and makes it on topic. The only alternative I believe I have, since most Bahais have silently condoned the censoring of my signature file, is to email all posters to soc.religion.bahai since 1992 directly with a notice of my new web site and mailing list so that they may exercise their own free will to choose whether or not they care to apprise themselves of the evidence and documentation I have placed online of censorship at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere. I must note that the net-abuse groups proved worthless during the last interest poll, as some of you acknowledged, and I see no point in appealing there.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:49 AM Subject: BULK MAIL> soc.religion.bahai I am looking for someone willing to bulk email all people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 to inform them of the existence of my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" and the unmoderated mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com. In an effort to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from even learning or hearing about their existence, the moderators are now censoring all messages from me that have my signature file as given below. This has been discussed for sometime on alt.religion.bahai and many relevant messages can now be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Some readers of news.groups might recall the fanaticism with which the interest polls for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai were opposed twice in the past by Bahais.... I believe this new censorship is being imposed in opposition to the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai late this summer or early fall.... I would appreciate any help or advice, on bulk mailing, or otherwise. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:56 AM Subject: BULK MAIL> soc.religion.bahai I am looking for someone willing to bulk email all people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since its founding in 1992 to inform them of the existence of my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" and the unmoderated mailing list bahai-faith@makelist.com. In an effort to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from even learning or hearing about their existence, the moderators are now censoring all messages from me that have my signature file as given below. This has been discussed for sometime on alt.religion.bahai and many relevant messages can now be found on my web site at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb.htm Some readers of news.groups might recall the fanaticism with which the interest polls for an unmoderated talk.religion.bahai were opposed twice in the past by Bahais.... I believe this new censorship is being imposed in opposition to the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai late this summer or early fall.... I would appreciate any help or advice, on bulk mailing, or otherwise. -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:02 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:04 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:05 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:14 AM Subject: Re: soc.religion.bahai - Welcome to srb Notice that while this person and other fundamentalist Bahais may post whatever they want on alt.religion.bahai, soc.religion.bahai "moderators" censor and continue to censor right done to people's signature files.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 9:09 AM To: Juan Cole Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? -----Original Message----- From: Juan Cole To: Frederick Glaysher Date: Thursday, June 25, 1998 12:57 PM Subject: Re: Juan's double standard? >PRIVATE > >Well, Fred, I've said it before and I'll say it again. These unjustified >diatribes against me are just delighting the critics of the both of us. Diatribe is a loaded word you're using to protect yourself from your own hypocrisy regarding Susan. My comments are quite justified given your even harsher criticism of her. In terms of delighting the literalists, it's in the best interest of free speech and conscience for us not to be perceived as working together.... Which, as far as I'm concerned, we're not.... You neglected to explain why you chose not to vote YES last time around, if we're on the same "side...." >My message to you about Wade was *private*; no one needed to know I had >said anything at all to you. I may have inadvertently mentioned it or whatever you're referring to. It's difficult to keep 40 or more messages every morning in the right order. But what are you hiding? Why shouldn't people know.... And it is in fact the case that flaming is >destructive of discussion lists when aimed at other posters. Irrelevant in the original context of your worse flaming of Susan, which you continue to dismiss or avoid while joining forces with Wade to bash me and assassinate my character.... > >I repeat that I am your ally. But with friends like you . . . You're neither my ally nor friend.... So please don't pretend. And I am not yours. You have your own agenda, and it is not mine.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:54 PM Subject: Bahai web site Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:55 PM Subject: Bahai web site Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:56 PM Subject: Bahai web site Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 12:59 PM Subject: Re: Frederick Glaysher - King O' Spam Guy Macon wrote in message <6mn6se$mrj$1@news01.deltanet.com>... >I might add that, even if true, this is OFF TOPIC in news.groups. >news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, news.admin.net-abuse.email and >news.admin.net-abuse.misc are the proper places to discuss such >things. News.groups is for newsgroup proposals. Take it elsewhere. This is not off topic. The imposition of censoring my signature file is directed by the srb moderators at the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. Since I've created a web site and a mailing list that help somewhat to get around their censorship, they realize they've lost some small amount of advantage they used successfully during the last two polls., i.e., their ability to prevent Bahais from even hearing of the polls taking place or discussing it in any way on soc.religion.bahai. By preventing me from posting to soc.religion.bahai using the signature file I use below they're depriving me of what is a commonly accepted usage all over Usenet. They have and are permitting other Bahais that share their views to post with any signature file they wish. Again, that's clearly aimed at the third interest poll and makes it on topic. The only alternative I believe I have, since most Bahais have silently condoned the censoring of my signature file, is to email all posters to soc.religion.bahai since 1992 directly with a notice of my new web site and mailing list so that they may exercise their own free will to choose whether or not they care to apprise themselves of the evidence and documentation I have placed online of censorship at soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere. I must note that the net-abuse groups proved worthless during the last interest poll, as some of you acknowledged, and I see no point in appealing there.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 1:14 PM To: talisman Subject: Re: The Spiritual Path of Bahai hate.... It's meaningless to talk about love when all Bahais demonstrate is hate.... Hatred of other people's opinions, hate of free speech, conscience, tolerance.... Trumpeted by the srb moderators, the BCCA, to name a few.... It's meaningless to talk about the Bahai writings, or study them for that matter, when nothing but coercion, "hikmat," and deceit negate anything one might think that is not received opinion.... If the fundamentalists represent the Bahai faith, it's a religion of hate, not love.... Ignoring that and withdrawing into a meaningless non-existence world of dreamy piety seems quite pathetic to me.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, June 26, 1998 1:15 PM To: Darrick Evenson Subject: Re: slaves Source please. Could you post it online instead of to me privately? -----Original Message----- From: Darrick Evenson To: FG@hotmail.com Date: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 5:47 PM Subject: Re: >*Black Pearls: Servants in the Households of The Bab and Baha'u'llah* by >Afnan (Kalimat Press, 1984). > > Although Baha'i scholars like to call the black slaves of The Bab and >Baha'u'llah "servants", they were in fact "slaves"; bought and sold. >Slavery among Baha'is didn't end until 1874 > > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at https://www.hotmail.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 6:05 AM To: Brooks, Hugh Subject: Re: makelist I started bahai-faith in early May and it's been very reliable ever since. I've never noticed any downtime. It used to be on coollist.com which was often down and has an extremely limited and cumbersome interface for managing a list. I definitely don't recommend using coollist. Ususally whenever I post to makelist I receive the message within a few seconds in my mailbox; its options/feature are much more flexible than any other list I know of. Try it. You won't regret it if your experience is anything like mine. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Brooks, Hugh To: 'bahai-faith-owner@makelist.com' Date: Saturday, June 27, 1998 4:03 PM Subject: makelist >I'm just now starting an e-mail list on makelist and have noticed some >lag and downtime. I'm just wondering if you might be able to tell me >whether your experience with makelist has been positive, whether it's >reliable etc. > >Thanks, > >Hugh Brooks >Research Assistant, Project for the Future of Equal Justice >Center for Law and Social Policy >1616 P Street, NW, Suite 150 >Washington, DC 20036 >(202) 328-5110 >hugh.brooks@clasp.org > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 6:51 AM Subject: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai Christopher Biow wrote in message <35a0e877.79612990@enews.newsguy.com>... >That is irrelevant. If Frederick sends Unsolicited Bulk Email (spam) to all >s.r.b posters since 1992, that is gross net abuse. Many will complain and >he will lose accounts that are in any way involved with such abuse, >including accounts he holds at Hotmail, at Newsguy, at Tripod, at FindMail, >and at any other reputable provider. > >If performed in conjunction with a new t.r.b CFV/RFD, this would also >constitute gross, abusive campaigning and would likely invalidate the >attempt to establish the new 'group. What if I sent individual email messages? I believe I heard once on news.groups that that is all right in terms of a newsgroup proposal. > >Frederick Glaysher agrees that he wrote: >>The only alternative I believe I have, since most Bahais have >>silently condoned the censoring of my signature file, is to >>email all posters to soc.religion.bahai since 1992 directly >>with a notice of my new web site and mailing list so that >>they may exercise their own free will to choose whether or >>not they care to apprise themselves of the evidence and >>documentation I have placed online of censorship at >>soc.religion.bahai and elsewhere. > >Frederick, perhaps a talk.religion.bahai newsgroup should be established. >Perhaps it should win in the upcoming RFD. However, I can say with >reasonable confidence that it will *not* pass if you are a proponent or are >actively involved in that effort. If indeed you want t.r.b to be created, >I'd suggest simply staying quiet for a few months. You're suggesting exactly what the "moderators" at soc.religion.bahai would like to see and are attempting by effectively banning me from srb.... You might find the documentation of Bahai censorship going back more than ten years on my web site informative and enlightening.... I doubt you would offer such advice if you we're better informed. Notice your response is exactly the one that someone@someone.com, obviously a clandestine Bahai, wanted to provoke.... Permit me to suggest you and others on news.groups might want to think about that more carefully.... >If you wish to promote your website, I'd suggest paying attention to the >web-search engines. You may also certainly use your .sig on Usenet 'groups >that allow you to post it. But spamming will defeat your purpose and lose >your net.access. I've already submitted it to all the search engines. The problem you're not addressing is the censoring of my signature file, and mine only, on srb. Now why would they wanted to do that? If you take a few minutes to glance at my web site, I believe you'll understand why they would want to do that in terms of the third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai. >>I must note that the net-abuse groups proved worthless >>during the last interest poll, as some of you acknowledged, >>and I see no point in appealing there.... > >No net-abuse is going on. Whatever you may consider to be "censorship" the >decision of a moderator, no matter how arbitrary, it is not net-abuse. And >regardless of your status as a victim of such censorship, Unsolicited Bulk >Email on your part *will* be net-abuse. I won't bulk mail if you and others on news.groups really think it's not the way to respond if it would adversely affect the third interest poll. I, however, do not see anything wrong with bulk mail. I receive it every day in may mailbox in front of my house and my emailbox. I throw away or delete what I'm not interested in and read or glance at what catches my eye. As a means of resisting tyranny, I see nothing wrong with it at all. >If you don't like that, I'd suggest finding another medium. > >Note: I am not in any way involved with t.r.b, s.r.b, or anything to do >with the Bahai faith. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 7:12 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice rlittle33@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <6mrlkr$c9e$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>... > >Mr. Glayshers signature file was not "suppressed", it was edited to delete >references or links to covenant breakers (see Judas) which, according to the >moderators, violate the charter of s.r.b. they are charged with preserving. This statement is as false as anything could be. It was suppressed by Bill Hyman for specious reasons. There were no references or links to covenant breakers in my signature file nor has there ever been. Rlittle knows this as well as Hyman. It's a mere stratagem employed to prevent readers of soc.religion.bahai from hearing about the existence of my web page since it contains amply evidence of the censorship regularly deployed by Hyman and his lackeys, one of which appears to be Mr. little.... I wrote: >> Rather, the fanatics in the Bahai Faith are expropriating the resources >> of free institutions to silence any view they don't like and prevent >> Bahais from even hearing about the existence of my web site which >> thoroughly documents the lies and censorship practiced at srb.... > >Wow! > >Mr. Glaysher has a web site, and exercises his privilege to promote his >antipathy toward the Baha'i Faith on it. His right to his opinions and >feelings, and to express them freely, is guaranteed in the United States of >America, and some few other countries. I don't have any antipathy towards the Bahai Faith but rather towards obsequious Bahais like you and the lying moderators at srb. > >Many Baha'is have sacrificed their lives rather than be subject to tyranny. I >know the surviving relatives of some of them. And then come here to encourage idiots like Bill Hyman to impose it on Americans and other people.... > >The Baha'is exercise the privilege of not posting material that attacks, >defames or injures an individual or the Baha'i Faith itself, on the one site >on the internet reserved for the Baha'i Faith. All the other 25000 plus sites >on the internet are available for attacks on the Baha'i Faith. You're ignoring once again that my signature file did and does not attack the Bahai faith. YOU and Bill Hyman attack the Bahai Faith by attacking the words of Abdu'l-Baha respecting freedom of speech and conscience. They can be found on the opening page of my web site.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 7:22 AM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice Bill Brewer wrote in message <3593447B.C5E0BE05@compusmart.ab.ca>... > >BB: Instances of mstakes, injustices, unwisdom will occur in any organisation. >For instances more enduring and serious, the question then is, does the >organisation have the machinery for redress?. Baha'is know that decisions at >each level can be appealed, all the way to the Universal House of Justice if >necessary. I appealed repeatedly to the UHJ late last fall and early winter to investigate the BCCA for depriving me of all access to bahai-discuss and other mailing lists at a time when discussion for the 2nd interest poll for talk.religon.bahai was looking very favorable, thereby adversely affecting it. The UHJ has thus far done nothing about it but ignore my requests. I have recently posted all relevant messages to my web site under "trb, arb, bahai-discuss archives." As I have said in the past, it remains an open question whether the UHJ itself supported the duplicitous actions of the BCCA in its constant and apparently ongoing attempts to prevent the formation of talk.religion.bahai. The BCCA may very well be behind Bill Hyman's latest little trick concerning my signature file. >For myself, I have confidence in the good faith of those in the Baha'i Community >with decision-making powers or authority, whether it be Assemblies or the >moderators at SRB. I have no such faith having been the victim of so much abuse by Bahai "moderators" and other fundamentalist sycophants.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 7:47 AM Subject: Re: Freedom of Choice YU ZIR wrote in message <14246-35941FDA-5@newsd-161.iap.bryant.webtv.net>... Bill Brewer's confidence in the Baha'i institutions is all well and fine. As I said in a previous post, SRB is the nicest NG I've ever been thrown out of. But as an outsider, I can perhaps see the point Fred Glaysher is making, and which point none of SRB's defenders seem to address. FORGIVE ME FOR USING CAPS. THE LITTLE ARROWS WON'T GO IN AUTOMATICALLY FOR SOME REASON. THE DEFENDERS OF SRB NEVER ADDRESS ANY POINTS RAISED. THEY JUST CITE PASSAGES FROM THE WRITINGS AND PREEN THEMSELVES ON THEIR VIRTUE AND INTIMATE MY DEPRAVITY AND WAYWARDNESS.... The moderators at SRB probably do a generally good job in most instances. Their efforts and hard work will be appreciated by anyone who has never run afoul of them. We might liken this to most people's attitude toward the police. We all love them, until (may this never happen to you) we encounter that rare cop who abuses his authority. Suddenly, the entire institution of the law takes up for the bad cop, since no one in that institution wishes to believe that cops can go bad (even thought they know in the abstract that it happens). This subjects the abused, loyal citizen to extreme stress. I LIKE YOUR ANALOGY. IT FITS EXCEPT ALL THE POLICE IN THIS INSTANCE ARE AND HAVE PROVEN THEMSELVES UTTERLY CORRUPT. SEE MY WEB SITE FOR NUMEROUS TESTIMONIALS UNDER soc.religion.bahai censorship. In Fred's case I speculate, (since it happened to me), the milk went sour early on in the interchanges with SRB, and particularly with Bill H. In my case, my attempts to ameliorate the hostility that I sensed from Bill H were, as I perceived it, rebuffed by him. No problem for me. My response was simple and effective: to walk away from SRB and post on ARB. ALT.RELIGION.BAHAI NEVER USED TO EXIST.... Fred Glaysher's situation may be more difficult since he regards himself as one of the faithful, and therefore feels more keenly the sting of injustice. MY QUOTATION: "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 Or maybe not, I'm just guessing. OH BITTER BETRAYAL, FIT FOR SHAKESPEARE.... My personal impression of SRB is that it is in the hands of cadre loyalists who can be adequately defended on the technical letter of the law, but who really do as much as they can get away with to discourage those of us who make cogent arguments they don't like. THAT'S IT PRECISELY.... That would cause me discomfort if an organization I belong to did that. If you're comfortable with SRB, support it. Just don't cross them. I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND QUITE WELL THE REAL SITUATION WITH THE "MODERATORS" AT SRB AND THE BAHAIS WHO SHORE THEM UP....TRAGEDY, REALLY, OF THE HUMAN HEART, AND ITS ABILITY TO PERVERT EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES, WHILE IMAGINING ITS serving THE HOLY CAUSE.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:15 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Posts to soc.culture.iranian, soc.culture.israel, soc.rights.human During the last few weeks I've tried repeatedly to post the following message to the three unmoderated newsgroups in the subject line without apparent success. My attempts don't show up on a search of dejanews.com. Does anyone have any ideas why I might be experiencing this problem? I'd appreciate it if someone else would repost this message for me to the three newsgroups. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 8:00 AM Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes >extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:27 AM To: talisman Subject: unsubscribe Please unsubscribe me from talisman. Since I have no alternative but to email directly all subscribers to soc.religion.bahai to inform them of Bill Hyman's tyrannous suppression of my signature file, I need to free up a little more time here and there. Best wishes, Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:28 AM To: H-NET List for Bahai Studies Subject: unsubscribe Please unsubscribe me from h-bahai. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:38 AM To: talisman Subject: One last message If anything appears on talisman pertaining to freedom of conscience or censorship, I would appreciate someone forwarding or cc-ing it to bahai-faith@makelist.com or alt.religion.bahai. Thanks. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:fglaysh@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 8:39 AM To: LISTSERV@H-NET.MSU.EDU unsubscribe h-bahai ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:56 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:27 PM Subject: Re: Email & Usenet abuse by Frederick Glaysher Thanks for your good words. I appreciate your willingness to speak up.... So few have.... I can't tell you how much it means to me.... But Guy and others are right: there is no outstanding proposal and doesn't yet belong on news.groups, and there can't be until after August 28th. Until then.... Trusting justice shall win out in the end.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm NASCARFAN@200.mph wrote in message <6n39st$4e$1@comet2.magicnet.net>... >It looks like "Someone" is trying to block "someone else's"? signature. > >Moderation turned censorship??? > >Not a member or reader of this news group >But if its true then he should advise his fellow posters >of this Contemptible act by a moderator. > >Seems you are posting anonymously > >While he is hanging it all out > >Why? > >I see no hidden agenda > >"He Admits" sending mail to seventy five posters of this N.G. > >I don't know what is going on .... >But I do here a voice screaming >in the Darkness of CENSORSHIP! > >If his signature is invalid, >then why do others get allowed as he has stated? > > >Please explain, >maybe ill understand why he should be censored >Right now I don't see why. > > >Someone wrote in message <199806271620.SAA26484@basement.replay.com>... >Frederick Glaysher admits to harvesting 75 addresses from the Usesnet >group soc.religion.bahai and sending spam to those addresses in >flagrant disregard of established Internet standards in the message >below. The following message does not contain full headers since it was >read via a browser-based email service. To verify the message exists, >go to https://www.makelist.com and select the list "bahai-faith" and find the >message. > >Begin message: > >________________ > > > Sunday, June 28, 1998 05:33 AM PST > > >"Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > >By Frederick Glaysher @hotmail.com > Author Profile > > >[The following message has been sent this morning to >75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman >imposed his >censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb >and >isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] > >I am emailing you directly because the moderators of >soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning >me from >srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence >of my >web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai >after August >28th. > >More information about their decision can be found at > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm > >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >focuses on >the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by >Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two >Usenet >interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: @makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: @makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email >subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Home Favorites New List > >_______________ >End message > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:29 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai Okay, sorry, Guy's right. It's off topic. Anyone wishing to continue to discuss this please do so on alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com. Let me thank everyone though who's posted on the topic. A number of comments have helped me understand more how bulk email is truly different from that at the street. I won't be bulk emailing but only direct single messages to all posters on soc.religion.bahai subesequent to Bill Hyman's suppressing my signature file. I can do those one at a time until he reinstates for me the commonly accepted practice allowed for many other posters to srb and elsewhere on Usenet, which is paid for not with Bahai money, but usually public and corporate funds.... Sorry for this inappropriate interruption of news.groups. Bye, till August.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:45 PM To: SRB; bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bill Hyman's specious reasoning and excuses for censorship Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your infamy, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your tyranny.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:45 PM Subject: Bill Hyman's specious reasoning and excuses for censorship Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your infamy, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your tyranny.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:48 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: 20 subscribers on bahai-faith There are currently 20 subscribers on bahai-faith: billbrwr@compusmart.ab.ca bintyaya@aol.com FG@hotmail.com harris632@aol.com house@usq.edu.au jbork@ssm-i.com jeffery.decker@usa.net laaeterna@aol.com leonid@magnet.at mjavid@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca mnachreiner@acsoftware.com mrscotty@mninter.net neoluddite@mailcity.com owner@sociologist.com pjohnson@vsla.edu shinsato@inxight.com starjo@arach.net.au stephenb@polarnet.ca tuffguy@tm.net.my whitbrandt@mailcity.com ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:28 AM To: George & Marlena Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Test George, alt.religion.bahai is a newsgroup. In the address you used below you have it @findmail.com which only handles certain functions for makelist.com. That may be the problem. Fred ------ The problem, I think, is in the address George is using to post messages to alt.religion.bahai: >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >Cc: alt.religion.bahai@findmail.com > I don't think that messages sent to will end up on that list - unless the FindMail site has features I am not familiar with. Warmly, Mark Foster -----Original Message----- From: George/Marlena To: bahai faith Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:24 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Test >Dear Friends, >I think that I had a glitch in my soft ware. I not only was having trouble >with ARB but I also lost completely an email too. Gone! not in sent, draft, >deleted, no where. Not even in windows explorer. Anyway John sent me some >info on how to reset the thing. Seems to be OK. Time will tell. Thanks for >the help. >PostOn. >George > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:42 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Bahais censor Yahoo! & the Encyclopedia Britannica Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your tactics, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your tyranny.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 As someone else has had the wit to point out, you're essentially censor me for referring people to the Internet equivalent (Yahoo! a major search engine) of the index for The Encyclopedia Britannica: >The Encyclopedia Britannica has called the Baha'i Faith a sect >for years and now it is used to tell others that the Baha'i Faith >has over 6million members. I believe most fair-minded people will readily discern your motives are suspect and reprehensible.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: Bahais censor Yahoo! & the Encyclopedia Britannica Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your tactics, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your tyranny.... "If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 As someone else has had the wit to point out, you're essentially censor me for referring people to the Internet equivalent (Yahoo! a major search engine) of the index for The Encyclopedia Britannica: >The Encyclopedia Britannica has called the Baha'i Faith a sect >for years and now it is used to tell others that the Baha'i Faith >has over 6million members. I believe most fair-minded people will readily discern your motives are suspect and reprehensible.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Cc: FG@hotmail.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam Dear Mr. Glaysher: You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your submissions would be accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the charter to advertise your web-site which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker material. This was checked and confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, which was also in your latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this address was also considered to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present "signature" and your submissions to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm that they meet the requirements of the charter. I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to prevent CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. Give me that guarantee, and I will vote for it. Bill Hyman Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add to Address Book Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] I am emailing you directly because the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. More information about their decision can be found at https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. Get your FREE, private e-mail account at https://www.mailcity.com ---- List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com -- Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:54 AM Subject: Re: Email & Usenet abuse by Frederick Glaysher Please set replies to alt.religion.bahai. I'm reposting this since I don't see it this morning on news.groups: Thanks for your good words. I appreciate your willingness to speak up.... So few have.... I can't tell you how much it means to me.... But Guy and others are right: there is no outstanding proposal and doesn't yet belong on news.groups, and there can't be until after August 28th. Until then.... Trusting justice shall win out in the end.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm NASCARFAN@200.mph wrote in message <6n39st$4e$1@comet2.magicnet.net>... >It looks like "Someone" is trying to block "someone else's"? signature. > >Moderation turned censorship??? > >Not a member or reader of this news group >But if its true then he should advise his fellow posters >of this Contemptible act by a moderator. > >Seems you are posting anonymously > >While he is hanging it all out > >Why? > >I see no hidden agenda > >"He Admits" sending mail to seventy five posters of this N.G. > >I don't know what is going on .... >But I do here a voice screaming >in the Darkness of CENSORSHIP! > >If his signature is invalid, >then why do others get allowed as he has stated? > > >Please explain, >maybe ill understand why he should be censored >Right now I don't see why. > > >Someone wrote in message <199806271620.SAA26484@basement.replay.com>... >Frederick Glaysher admits to harvesting 75 addresses from the Usesnet >group soc.religion.bahai and sending spam to those addresses in >flagrant disregard of established Internet standards in the message >below. The following message does not contain full headers since it was >read via a browser-based email service. To verify the message exists, >go to https://www.makelist.com and select the list "bahai-faith" and find the >message. > >Begin message: > >________________ > > > Sunday, June 28, 1998 05:33 AM PST > > >"Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" > >By Frederick Glaysher @hotmail.com > Author Profile > > >[The following message has been sent this morning to >75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman >imposed his >censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb >and >isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.] > >I am emailing you directly because the moderators of >soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, effectively banning >me from >srb, in an apparent effort to prevent you from hearing about the existence >of my >web site and the approaching third interest poll for talk.religion.bahai >after August >28th. > >More information about their decision can be found at > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm > >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" >focuses on >the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by >Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two >Usenet >interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at soc.religion.bahai: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: @makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: @makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email >subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > >Home Favorites New List > >_______________ >End message > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:56 AM Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai Please reset replies to alt.religion.bahai. Okay, sorry, Guy's right. It's off topic. Anyone wishing to continue to discuss this please do so on alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, or bahai-faith@makelist.com. Let me thank everyone though who's posted on the topic. A number of comments have helped me understand more how bulk email is truly different from that at the street. I won't be bulk emailing but only direct single messages to all posters on soc.religion.bahai subesequent to Bill Hyman's suppressing my signature file. I can do those one at a time until he reinstates for me the commonly accepted practice allowed for many other posters to srb and elsewhere on Usenet, which is paid for not with Bahai money, but usually public and corporate funds.... Sorry for this inappropriate interruption of news.groups. Bye, till August.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:07 AM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: srb posters express thanks Let me quote a few messages of thanks from srb posters responding to my message informing them of the existence of bahai-faith@makelist.com and my web site. [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.].... (1) >Thanks, for the email. SRB is sort of * tame * and I was sure there >must be more going on than what one reads there. While the Bahai Faith >makes a lot of sense to me, the censorship and the people who practice >it do not. Good luck with your efforts. I am sure Baha'u'lah would >approve. (2) >thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate the link to your webpage. Only had >time to scan it really quickly, and it sounds very interesting. I'll go back >and give it the time it deserves asap. (3) >thanks for your message. >The ng seems to have a fundamentalist tone. >I think Bahai's must drop some axioms about infallibility >of interpretations by Abdul and Shoghi if they are to >attract any thinkers of substance. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:07 AM Subject: srb posters express thanks Let me quote a few messages of thanks from srb posters responding to my message informing them of the existence of bahai-faith@makelist.com and my web site. [The following message has been sent this morning to 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these Bahais in a cult-like manner.].... (1) >Thanks, for the email. SRB is sort of * tame * and I was sure there >must be more going on than what one reads there. While the Bahai Faith >makes a lot of sense to me, the censorship and the people who practice >it do not. Good luck with your efforts. I am sure Baha'u'lah would >approve. (2) >thank you for your e-mail. I appreciate the link to your webpage. Only had >time to scan it really quickly, and it sounds very interesting. I'll go back >and give it the time it deserves asap. (3) >thanks for your message. >The ng seems to have a fundamentalist tone. >I think Bahai's must drop some axioms about infallibility >of interpretations by Abdul and Shoghi if they are to >attract any thinkers of substance. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:21 AM Subject: Baha'i Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: Baha'i Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:23 AM Subject: Baha'i Permit me to mention for those who might be interested that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for talk.religion.bahai: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm A mailing list has also been created for those without access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com -- Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 12:52 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Where is the line? Nancy, I believe he's talking about www.dejanews.com, which you should be able to use if you have web access. You can search alt.religion.bahai, for instance, and post to the newsgroup from there directly.... Was that it, George? -----Original Message----- From: LaAeterna@aol.com To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Where is the line? >george >What did you find???I don't have that type of program on my pc, so can't do >that type of search >Nancy >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:08 PM To: admin@yahoo.com Subject: soc.religion.bahai censors Yahoo! I'm forwarding you a copy of a message that discusses the fact that the moderators of soc.religion.bahai have banned or censored any postings to their newsgroup that contain links to your Yahoo! page on the Baha'i Faith. They've done this to me personally because my web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience" has a link on it to your page. Please see current discussion about this on alt.religion.bahai or bahai-faith@makelist.com for more information. Frederick Glaysher FG@hotmail.com -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:42 AM Subject: Bahais censor Yahoo! & the Encyclopedia Britannica >Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent >others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and >preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing >about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. > >I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to >soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the >signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" >have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your >censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your >tactics, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your >tyranny.... > >"If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty >tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." >Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 > >As someone else has had the wit to point out, you're >essentially censor me for referring people to the Internet >equivalent (Yahoo! a major search engine) of the index for >The Encyclopedia Britannica: > >>The Encyclopedia Britannica has called the Baha'i Faith a sect >>for years and now it is used to tell others that the Baha'i Faith >>has over 6million members. > >I believe most fair-minded people will readily discern your >motives are suspect and reprehensible.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >Cc: FG@hotmail.com >Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM >Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam > > >Dear Mr. Glaysher: >You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your >submissions would be >accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the >charter to advertise your web-site >which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker >material. This was checked and >confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, >which was also in your >latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this >address was also considered >to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present >"signature" and your submissions >to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm >that they meet the requirements of >the charter. > >I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to >prevent >CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is guaranteed. >Give me that guarantee, >and I will vote for it. >Bill Hyman > >Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 > From: "Frederick Glaysher" Add >to Address Book > Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience" > To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" > > Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com > > [The following message has been sent this morning to > 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since > Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, > thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these > Bahais in a cult-like manner.] > > > I am emailing you directly because the moderators of > soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, > effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort > to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my > web site and the approaching third interest poll for > talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. > > More information about their decision can be found at > > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm > > > Permit me to mention for those who might be interested > that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of > Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the > religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also > includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet > interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at > soc.religion.bahai: > > > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > A mailing list has also been created for those without > access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > > -- > Frederick Glaysher > Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > > Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com > > List Archive & Subscription: >https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > > Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > > The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > ---- > List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ > To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > > To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com > > -- > Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > >©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. > > > >Get your FREE, private e-mail >account at https://www.mailcity.com >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:11 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: fw soc.religion.bahai censors Yahoo! fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: admin@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:08 PM Subject: soc.religion.bahai censors Yahoo! >I'm forwarding you a copy of a message >that discusses the fact that the moderators of >soc.religion.bahai have banned or censored any postings >to their newsgroup that contain links to your Yahoo! page >on the Baha'i Faith. They've done this to me personally >because my web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience" has a link on it to your page. > >Please see current discussion about this on alt.religion.bahai >or bahai-faith@makelist.com for more information. > >Frederick Glaysher >FG@hotmail.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:42 AM >Subject: Bahais censor Yahoo! & the Encyclopedia Britannica > > >>Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent >>others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and >>preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing >>about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. >> >>I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to >>soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the >>signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" >>have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your >>censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your >>tactics, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your >>tyranny.... >> >>"If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty >>tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." >>Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 >> >>As someone else has had the wit to point out, you're >>essentially censor me for referring people to the Internet >>equivalent (Yahoo! a major search engine) of the index for >>The Encyclopedia Britannica: >> >>>The Encyclopedia Britannica has called the Baha'i Faith a sect >>>for years and now it is used to tell others that the Baha'i Faith >>>has over 6million members. >> >>I believe most fair-minded people will readily discern your >>motives are suspect and reprehensible.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>Cc: FG@hotmail.com >>Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM >>Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam >> >> >>Dear Mr. Glaysher: >>You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your >>submissions would be >>accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the >>charter to advertise your web-site >>which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker >>material. This was checked and >>confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, >>which was also in your >>latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this >>address was also considered >>to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present >>"signature" and your submissions >>to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm >>that they meet the requirements of >>the charter. >> >>I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to >>prevent >>CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is >guaranteed. >>Give me that guarantee, >>and I will vote for it. >>Bill Hyman >> >>Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 >> From: "Frederick Glaysher" >Add >>to Address Book >> Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>of Conscience" >> To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" >> >> Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> [The following message has been sent this morning to >> 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since >> Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, >> thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these >> Bahais in a cult-like manner.] >> >> >> I am emailing you directly because the moderators of >> soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, >> effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort >> to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my >> web site and the approaching third interest poll for >> talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. >> >> More information about their decision can be found at >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm >> >> >> Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >> that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >> Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the >> religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also >> includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet >> interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at >> soc.religion.bahai: >> >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> A mailing list has also been created for those without >> access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> List Archive & Subscription: >>https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> ---- >> List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> To Unsubscribe: e-mail to >bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >> -- >> Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >>©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. >> >> >> >>Get your FREE, private e-mail >>account at https://www.mailcity.com >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:11 PM Subject: fw soc.religion.bahai censors Yahoo! fyi -----Original Message----- From: FG To: admin@yahoo.com Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:08 PM Subject: soc.religion.bahai censors Yahoo! >I'm forwarding you a copy of a message >that discusses the fact that the moderators of >soc.religion.bahai have banned or censored any postings >to their newsgroup that contain links to your Yahoo! page >on the Baha'i Faith. They've done this to me personally >because my web site, "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >of Conscience" has a link on it to your page. > >Please see current discussion about this on alt.religion.bahai >or bahai-faith@makelist.com for more information. > >Frederick Glaysher >FG@hotmail.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: FG >Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,talk.religion.misc >Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:42 AM >Subject: Bahais censor Yahoo! & the Encyclopedia Britannica > > >>Your unjust actions against me are clearly intended to prevent >>others from even hearing about the existence of my web site and >>preventing them, as srb has done in the past, from knowing >>about the interest polls for talk.religion.bahai. >> >>I shall therefore continue emailing every single new poster to >>soc.religion.bahai until I am permitted to post to srb using the >>signature file of my choice. Since you and the other "moderators" >>have hardened your hearts, obstinately clinging to your >>censorious ways, seeking always new devices to justify your >>tactics, I see no alternative but to resist and circumvent your >>tyranny.... >> >>"If he exercises his anger and wrath against the bloodthirsty >>tyrants who are like ferocious beasts, it is very praiseworthy...." >>Abdu'l-Baha, SAQ, 215 >> >>As someone else has had the wit to point out, you're >>essentially censor me for referring people to the Internet >>equivalent (Yahoo! a major search engine) of the index for >>The Encyclopedia Britannica: >> >>>The Encyclopedia Britannica has called the Baha'i Faith a sect >>>for years and now it is used to tell others that the Baha'i Faith >>>has over 6million members. >> >>I believe most fair-minded people will readily discern your >>motives are suspect and reprehensible.... >> >>Frederick Glaysher >>Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >>Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >>The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >>https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Island Business Center (Bill Hyman) >>To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >>Cc: FG@hotmail.com >>Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 5:13 PM >>Subject: [bahai-faith] Glaysherspam >> >> >>Dear Mr. Glaysher: >>You were informed by one of the moderators of soc.religion.bahai that your >>submissions would be >>accepted if they conformed to its charter. It was considered against the >>charter to advertise your web-site >>which points to another web-site which has pointers to Covenant Breaker >>material. This was checked and >>confirmed by the srb moderating team. The bahai-faith@makelist.com address, >>which was also in your >>latest signature, has posted Covenant Breaker material so advertising this >>address was also considered >>to be against the charter. All you have to do is change your present >>"signature" and your submissions >>to soc.religion.bahai will be assessed, as are all submissions, to confirm >>that they meet the requirements of >>the charter. >> >>I hope that if you do get TRB approved that you are able to find a way to >>prevent >>CB material being posted. I will vote against it unless this is >guaranteed. >>Give me that guarantee, >>and I will vote for it. >>Bill Hyman >> >>Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 09:56:39 -0400 >> From: "Frederick Glaysher" >Add >>to Address Book >> Subject: [bahai-faith] "Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom >>of Conscience" >> To: "bahai-faith @ makelist.com" >> >> Reply To: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> [The following message has been sent this morning to >> 75 people who have posted to soc.religion.bahai since >> Bill Hyman imposed his censorship on my signature file, >> thereby effectively banning me from srb and isolating these >> Bahais in a cult-like manner.] >> >> >> I am emailing you directly because the moderators of >> soc.religion.bahai have censorsed my signature file, >> effectively banning me from srb, in an apparent effort >> to prevent you from hearing about the existence of my >> web site and the approaching third interest poll for >> talk.religion.bahai after August 28th. >> >> More information about their decision can be found at >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/srb22.htm >> >> >> Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >> that my web site "The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of >> Conscience" focuses on the opposition of many Bahais to the >> religious freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also >> includes extensive material relating to the two Usenet >> interest polls for talk.religion.bahai and censorship at >> soc.religion.bahai: >> >> >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> A mailing list has also been created for those without >> access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> -- >> Frederick Glaysher >> Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc >> >> Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >> >> List Archive & Subscription: >>https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> >> Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> >> The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >> https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm >> >> ---- >> List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >> To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >> >> To Unsubscribe: e-mail to >bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >> >> -- >> Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >>©1995-1998 WhoWhere? Inc. All Rights Reserved. >> >> >> >>Get your FREE, private e-mail >>account at https://www.mailcity.com >>---- >>List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >>To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >>To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >>-- >>Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! >> >> >> >> >> > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:17 PM Subject: Baha'i -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.culture.iranian Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:21 AM Subject: Baha'i >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes >extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:19 PM Subject: Baha'i -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.culture.israel Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: Baha'i >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes >extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 1:20 PM Subject: Baha'i -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: soc.rights.human Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: Baha'i >Permit me to mention for those who might be interested >that a new web site on the Bahai Faith has been created, >focusing on the opposition of many Bahais to the religious >freedom commended by Abdu'l-Baha. The site also includes >extensive material relating to the two Usenet interest polls for >talk.religion.bahai: > > >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > >A mailing list has also been created for those without >access to the alt.* hierarchy: bahai-faith@makelist.com > >-- >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: >https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:47 PM Subject: Re: Persecution of minorities in Iran RobertNik wrote in message <1998062718492300.OAA29627@ladder03.news.aol.com>... >Bahais in Iran are denied all constitutional rights - they cannot take jobs, >marry, go to school, pass on property - in short they are denied basic civil >rights. Some Bahais routinely deprive other Bahais and non-Bahais of their civil rights and impose censorship all the time on people in the USA and elsewhere. I suggest you consult the current threads on these matters on alt.religion.bahai and bahai-faith@makelist.com. At the moment the "moderators" of soc.religion.bahai are busy censoring Yahoo! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 8:51 PM Subject: Re: Persecution of minorities in Iran RobertNik wrote in message <1998062720184000.QAA12624@ladder01.news.aol.com>... >For anyone reading this post, this is how Hezbollahis operate - by >intimidation, and threats. Actually, many Bahais operate this way. I refer you to my web site the Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience. >This is a free - medium and ill post as I please. A free medium? That's more than can be said for soc.religion.bahai.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:05 PM Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai This is the third time I've tried to post this message in 24 hours. Hope they don't all show up finally tomorrow morning.... -----Original Message----- From: FG Newsgroups: alt.religion.bahai,news.groups,talk.religion.misc Date: Saturday, June 27, 1998 9:29 PM Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai >Okay, sorry, Guy's right. It's off topic. Anyone wishing to continue >to discuss this please do so on alt.religion.bahai, talk.religion.misc, >or bahai-faith@makelist.com. > >Let me thank everyone though who's posted on the topic. A >number of comments have helped me understand more how bulk >email is truly different from that at the street. I won't be bulk >emailing but only direct single messages to all posters on >soc.religion.bahai subesequent to Bill Hyman's suppressing my >signature file. I can do those one at a time until he reinstates for >me the commonly accepted practice allowed for many other >posters to srb and elsewhere on Usenet, which is paid for not >with Bahai money, but usually public and corporate funds.... > >Sorry for this inappropriate interruption of news.groups. > >Bye, till August.... > >Frederick Glaysher >Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc > >Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com >List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com > >The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: > https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm > > > > > > > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:13 PM To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai That's the way news.groups works. They can only take on a several proposals at a time. Guy Macon is right that I shouldn't raise any issues, strictly speaking, without an active proposal. Hadn't occurred to me. They can't and won't do anything about srb anyway.... -----Original Message----- From: George/Marlena To: bahai faith Date: Sunday, June 28, 1998 2:21 PM Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai >Dear Friends, >I guess that Mismoderation/censorship on Soc.Religion.Mormon IS on topic. >What with 47 posts and some 200kb devoted to the subject in the last few >days. No wonder they don't want to talk about SRB. No time? Bias? Something >else? Can't say I am just an observer there. >PostOn. >George > > > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:18 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: Where is the line? George/Marlena wrote in message <6n4ruo$lu$1@news.eli.net>... If I >link to a link that links to a link that links to a link that could be a >link that promotes a succession of authority outside the Covenant of >Baha'u'llah, does THAT make my post a promotion?? >This kind of thinking makes me nervous. Where's the line?? Srb has been pulling things like this for more than a year and a half now that I know of. There's no end in sight.... They're really prisoners of their narrow conception of the Writings. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:18 PM Subject: Re: Where is the line? George/Marlena wrote in message <6n4ruo$lu$1@news.eli.net>... If I >link to a link that links to a link that links to a link that could be a >link that promotes a succession of authority outside the Covenant of >Baha'u'llah, does THAT make my post a promotion?? >This kind of thinking makes me nervous. Where's the line?? Srb has been pulling things like this for more than a year and a half now that I know of. There's no end in sight.... They're really prisoners of their narrow conception of the Writings. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:21 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: How many Baha'is are there? Milissa Boyer Kafes wrote in message <6n6f6t$ed3$1@supernews.com>... >I have been very curious to know exactly how many Baha'is there actually >are. There was a long thread on this some time ago somewhere. Juan Cole and others speculated 25,000 at best in the US. Probably about right.... Your guess though is as good as anyone else's. The only certainty is that the numbers that are claimed are false.... Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:24 PM To: bahai-faith @ makelist.com Subject: Re: How many Baha'is are there? Oh, incidentally, on afterthought, I attempted to post a message to srb on exactly this topic during the last month or two and they rejected it. I believe they claimed it was a personal message.... It may be on the srb section of my web site. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 28, 1998 9:24 PM Subject: Re: How many Baha'is are there? Oh, incidentally, on afterthought, I attempted to post a message to srb on exactly this topic during the last month or two and they rejected it. I believe they claimed it was a personal message.... It may be on the srb section of my web site. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 5:57 AM Subject: Re: srb posters express thanks 2nd installment of responses: (1) >I assume that you've mailed this information because ou obtained my email >address after I posted on the soc.religion.bahai newsgroup one time. While I >thought your web page was interesting and well done (and you are obviously >extremely well educated), I really don't have any interest in "things Baha'i" >any more. > >I was an active member of the faith for a few months (I guess my name appeared >"on the books" for about 2 years), I withdrew formally back in May. Therefore, >please don't send me anything similar in the future. > >Best of luck with your quest or mission or whatever. I hope that whomever is >bothering you stops it. > >Thanks & brightest blessings..... (2) >I would like to be added to the Bahaii mailing list, if I may. > >I found out about the mailing list from Fredericks approach to the Bahaii >newsgroup. And as so many others I am somewhat upset about the censorship in >effect on this list. > >So please add me to the mailing list...and I am in high hopes that my >writings will not be censored as it has been the case in previous times. > >Thank you and brgds Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 6:19 AM To: peiss@dialup.nacamar.de Subject: Re: [bahai-faith] Subscribe You should soon receive an invitation message to join the mailing list. You then need to subscribe yourself through either the email address or web page given in my signature file. Welcome! Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm -----Original Message----- From: Petra Eissinger To: bahai-faith@makelist.com Date: Monday, June 29, 1998 1:51 AM Subject: [bahai-faith] Subscribe >I would like to be added to the Bahaii mailing list, if I may. > >I found out about the mailing list from Fredericks approach to the Bahaii >newsgroup. And as so many others I am somewhat upset about the censorship in >effect on this list. > >So please add me to the mailing list...and I am in high hopes that my >writings will not be censored as it has been the case in previous times. > >Thank you and brgds >Petra > >*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* - >*- >The reality of man is his thought >not his material body >********************************************************************* > >---- >List Archive: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ >To Subscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com >To Unsubscribe: e-mail to bahai-faith-unsubscribe@makelist.com >-- >Start Your Own Free Mailing List at https://www.MakeList.com ! > ---------- From: FG[SMTP:FG@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 1998 6:29 AM To: Guy Macon Subject: Re: BULK MAIL soc.religion.bahai >Keep a good list of who you have emailed, so that you don't hit any >one person more than once. That will REALLY make people mad! Thanks. I will. Sorry to bother news.groups with this. I initially thought it would be okay to ask for some advice. Frederick Glaysher Usenet: alt.religion.bahai & talk.religion.misc Listserv: bahai-faith@makelist.com List Archive & Subscription: https://www.findmail.com/listsaver/bahai-faith/ Email subscription: bahai-faith-subscribe@makelist.com The Bahai Faith & Religious Freedom of Conscience: https://members.tripod.com/~fglaysher/index.htm