On May 14, 7:11 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Not for nuthin' but it would be easier for me if you would just explain
the
> ideas you are bringing forward without first labeling them, because I
don't
> know what you think at this point, or even why you responded to the
thread
> to begin with. I like some of the ideas you bring forward, like
equating
> faith, it seems even your own, with a "pretense of certitude".
Basically, I attach more im****tance to how people act than to what
they believe. To be a members of the Baha'i Faith, one needs to accept
the Covenant and be obedient to it. I think that was also Shoghi
Effendi's point in not wanting to provide a long list of doctrines
which Baha'is need to accept. It was sufficient to say that a Baha'i
accepts the authority of the three Central Figures (for anyone not
familiar with that term: Baha'u'llah, the Bab, and `Abdu'l-Baha) and
the administration, i.e., the Covenant.
So, even if I don't like, or even personally disagree with, a
particular Baha'i teaching, I still need to acknowledge its authority
- that, in some sense, it appears to reflect God's Will. For instance,
when I was a new Baha'i, I disagreed with what `Abdu'l-Baha wrote
about reincarnation. (I believed in reincarnation at the time.)
However, I still accepted that what `Abdu'l-Baha said about it, at
least as I understood what He explained, was an authoritative
interpretation. Similarly, I may not agree with or like various other
teachings, but I accept the authority of the Covenant over my own
opinions.
Moreover, two people can both accept the same Baha'i teaching and yet
understand it in very different ways. Many Baha'is, for instance, are,
functionally, creationists. They believe that humans do not come from
the same biological line as other animals (which is almost identical
to the views of old-earth creationists in Protestantism). My view is
nuanced. On the one hand, while I consider that `Abdu'l-Baha's views
on evolution have authority as a Baha'i narrative, they do not have
authority as a scientific proposition. On the other hand, I also
understand `Abdu'l-Baha to be arguing for, not for old-earth
creationism, but for the human kingdom including the lower kingdoms of
creation, i.e., that the human rational soul cannot be encompassed by
the animal kingdom.
Similarly, although I accept the Baha'i view of the Virgin Birth as
having authority within Baha'i sacred history (as a spiritual
narrative of what happened), I don't accept it as a historical event.
Why? Because there is no historical evidence for it. Whether it
"actually happened" is unknown. However, the Virgin Birth has validity
in the *context* of Baha'i scripture.
> And I don't think I agree with equating "meaning (knowledge)" if that is
> what you are doing.
My view is that my knowledge of a subject is what gives it meaning to
me.
> That faith seems to me like your "pretense of certitude". I would like
to
> hear how you feel it differs because I am absolutely certain that your
> excuses, your wiggle room, your way out of calling faith a "pretense" is
> what many Christians do.
To my understanding, certitude has nothing to do with rationally
accepting a set of doctrines. It refers to one's faith in, or
recognition of, the Prophet.
> I would love to hear more.
I mentioned that in connection with using the term "polydoxy" and
"orthopraxy." By deconstructing, in this sense, I mean that I am
taking the "ortho" and the "doxy" from "orthodoxy" and using them to
refer to two different words - each of which is defined very
differently from "orthodoxy." I am engaging in word play in order to
question the idea of orthodoxy.
Mark Foster
|
