Hi, Kent:
I wrote:
> > the administration, i.e., the Covenant
You replied:
> Susan does that too, equates the administration with the Covenant, and I
> don't. That it is a command of the Covenant of Baha'u'llah that we
follow
> the officially sanctioned direction of the Baha'i administration is not
the
> same thing as equating the administration with the Covenant.
I may have phrased that poorly. However, what I wrote was:
>>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.<<
I was including acceptance of the Three Central Figures and the
administration under "the [Baha'i] Covenant."
> Only the Writings are authoritative as to interpretation. On the other
hand
> our *behavior* is subject to the direction of the institutions. No one
can
> answer the question "Why face His shrine in prayer?" with authority
except
> the Writings. But should we want clarification on when is sunset and
which
> direction to face from the South Pole or on the moon the Baha'i
> administration is the authority.
Yes.
> My line of reasoning, adapted through study of SAQ, begins with Genesis.
I
> believe that when God said "Let there be light" He was not inventing
light,
> but rather He was inventing language.
Interesting. I never thought about the subject that way before. I will
need to reflect on it.
> I have been talking to Suzanne about 'Abdu'l-Baha's use of those words.
> Perhaps I will make an addition to that thread and maybe you will join
us.
Okay.
> The example was your acceptance of doctrines with which you rationally
> disagreed. Isn't that correct?
Yes. To be more specific, it is more like ordinances I disagree with,
such as parental consent for marriage. In my experience, that
requirement has resulted in more disunity than unity, but I accept
that God knows more than I do.
> So you *were* practicing your Greek.
In a sense, I guess. ;-) I was doing something similar to Jacques
Derrida's deconstruction.
Mark Foster
|
