Hi Mark,
>Accepting and following the Baha'i institutions are among
> the conditions of the Baha'i Covenant, but that does not imply that
> the Covenant can be reduced to the administrative order.
True. And as I keep saying, following the teachings, living up to what
'Abdu'l-Baha expects of a Baha'i is more im****tant than Baha'i
administration in Baha'u'llah's Covenant with humanity.
It is like your example of Baha'i creationism. 'Abdu'l-Baha explained the
rational human spirit is not found in the natural world and we have
Baha'is
interpreting His comments as a creationism. I submit that to mention
Baha'i
administration in the same breath with the Covenant of Baha'u'llah
cheapens
that Covenant, making it a kind of creationism, a misshapen, hollow,
narrow
version of the Covenant. The im****tant aspect of the Covenant is the
personal aspect, the individual initiative it requires of us. Any other
focus is not nearly so likely to help us or any of God's creatures.
--Kent
"Foucaultian" <drfosternotfromgloucester@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:0a2dnUywLIGNVrHVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On May 15, 11:18 am, "Kent Johnson" <k...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> It seems to me you have, in the past, equated obedience to the
>> institutions
>> as obedience to the Covenant. But your word is good. If that is not
>> what
>> you mean that is more im****tant to me than what you said.
>
> Kent,
>
> If I might butt in. ;-) You had written:
>
> "Susan ... equates the administration with the Covenant, and I
> don't."
>
> What you just wrote, and what you wrote previously, are very
> different. Accepting and following the Baha'i institutions are among
> the conditions of the Baha'i Covenant, but that does not imply that
> the Covenant can be reduced to the administrative order.
>
> Mark Foster
>
|
