Is it our pale understanding that sees contradictions?

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by Cloth ( on August 14, 2002 at 06:30:12:

In Reply to: Re: Question on UHJ ? posted by Brett Zamir on July 14, 2002 at 15:16:24:

Once again, Brett introduces illogical or self-contradictory quotations without apology or explanation - (his exemplary scholarship never in doubt, however.)

He write: "As regards the membership of the International House of Justice, Abdu'l-Baha states in a Tablet that it is confined to men, and that the wisdom of it will be revealed as manifest as the sun in the future. In any case the believers should know that, as Abdu'l-Baha Himself has explicitly stated that sexes are equal except in some cases, the exclusion of women from the International House of Justice should not be surprising. From the fact that there is no equality of functions between the sexes one should not, however, infer that either sex is inherently superior or inferior to the other, or that they are unequal in their rights."

There is evasion in the first sentence; "sexes are equal excpet in some cases" means precisely that they are NOT EQUAL; then, "no equality of function does not infer non-equality" is an absurdity when the functions of men are considered by most to be higher than those of women, in the minds of many Baha'i women, certainly.

Given specific Baha'i instructions without otherwise discovered, explicit, contradictions, makes my life as a Baha'i easier to live. One of the main reasons that "In real life" Baha'is tend to be selective in their choice of moral action is defensive, a way to avoid the contradictions, or, the apparent contradictions, since by definition, beyond our pale understandings, there are NO contradictions.

this topic is closed - post at