Posted by Marie (65.93.89.219) on August 14, 2002 at 06:53:27:

In Reply to: Re: For Brett posted by Brett Zamir on August 13, 2002 at 16:40:03:

Brett wrote:

Dear Marie,

ãNice to hear your thoughtful concerns.

ãAn important principle of the Faith is that there are no contradictions between the various authoritative Writings we have. How could there be if we believe Baha'u'llah is infallible (as we do), as well as the Successorship He set up as infallible (as Baha'u'llah Himself promised it would be)?ä

Then you are telling me that what appears to be a contradiction is my own inability to see the harmony between (what appear to be) contradictions. That is a question:

ãHowever, as you allude to, it may be difficult for us at times to find the reconciliation of two teachings--even by the same author--so, it is helpful to look at the full context of other Writings (and if necessary the elucidations of the Universal House of Justice) in order to find the inevitable reconciliation.ä

I confess that it is an impossibility for me to perform the kind of in-depth research and scholarship you demonstrate. But your last paragraph may be dogmatic rather than factual, Faith, not reason, which is acceptable.

ãIn this case, I would recommend reading Chapters 76 and 77 of Some Answered Questions on-line here at this site at:

http://www.bahai-library.com/writings/abdulbaha/saq/ä

Thank you.

ãThe essence of the argument is that there is a distinction between what an individual should do, and as to what the community should do in order to protect its citizens (rather than for the purpose of taking vengeance.ä

All right, individual morality and collective morality, representing individual responsibility vs. community responsiblity.

ãIt should be pointed out that the quotation in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas is not encouraging vigilante action of individuals against other individuals, but rather something to be carried out within the Baha'i legal system of the future (and possibly encouraging it within the non-Baha'i system, though Baha'is would not push this even if our institutions did determine to encourage it).ä

I never considered that vigilante action, individual or collective, was acceptable. No argument here.

ãThe Baha'i position in support of the death penalty (along with its reservations about how the law has been unfairly or cruelly carried out in many cases) is available at:

http://www.bahai-library.com/uhj/amnesty.interntl.html
http://www.bahai-library.com/uhj/capital.punishment.htmlä

I have printed out these references and I am reading them.

The Christian view of ãturn the other cheekä seems to coincide with the Buddhist and Hindu views of non-violence. Whereas Judaic Law, Muslim Law and Bahaâi Law, under certain circumstances, provide for the death penalty. Since we are to accept all the Prophets, how does one reconcile the differences, slight or profound, between the Prophets.

Which is to introduce another dimension to my question - First, I still - even if incorrectly - see contradictions within the Holy Writings, but can deal with them. But now, turn your attention to the differences between the Words of the other Prophets, preceding Bahaâuâllah. And I am not simply referring to capital punishment. The list of contradictions is endless. Reconcile that, please. Your answers are always refreshing, intelligent and instructive.

Best wishes,

Marie

Brett

this topic is closed - post at bahai-library.com/forum