Hi Tom,
I am moderating right now, and I hardly remember the last time I rejected
a
message. When I do so it is because I believe there is no issue in the
message worth discussing beyond discussing a person, what was said or not
said. Comments like yours, then, make me wonder what other people believe
should be rejected.
>This is pretty insulting to Susan. I am surprised that the moderators
>passed it.
I personally avoid talking about what a person said in favor of talking
about what the person meant. But in this case I am curious. What did I
say
about Susan that did not relate to an im****tant issue about Baha'i
Exclusivism?
> I think this is in reply to Susan's comment that _just_ accepting some
of
> the
> teachings is not sufficient for becoming a Baha'i.
Do you think Susan has the right or responsibility to make such a
judgment?
Do you?
> The things that will enable
> the Baha'i Faith to transform the world are the Covenant and the
> Administrative
> Order. Without the unifying power of these twin institutions, the
Baha'is
> would just splinter into another welter of sects as have all previous
> religions.
It seems to me your speaking in the future tense means that you realize
this
is not happening. Apparently you believe that some new day, without any
real change in the Baha'i community, things will just come together, maybe
magically, because what we are doing now is just plain right. Is that
your
view?
Obviously I have been very clear that is not my view, and I am not trying
to
be insulting. I am wondering how you can find fault with my clear
statements about personal transformation and unifying acceptance of the
principles of God for all humanity. I am not asking everyone to get
parental consent for marriage, I am asking everyone to assent to the
evident
fact that each of us can contribute to God's Will in unique ways that we
need to work out with Him, transform our lives, and encourage anyone else
to
do the same, regardless of their religion or our religion. That is
unifying. I view Susan's view and your view as exclusivist, and I hope
you
will try harder to explain to me why it is not.
> Of course we should draw closer to God. You really need to ask? How
does
> understanding the nature of the Covenant and accepting the authority of
> the
> Administration keep us from spiritual growth? It looks to me like a
> powerful
> enabler.
Should non-Baha'is draw closer to God? Is that possible? How about
Baha'is
who have been nationally recognized in our Faith and give wonderful,
inspiring talks to other Baha'is? Can they grow closer to God? Or are
they
already there, and we should emulate them?
How is it insulting to suggest that people should grow closer to God?
And how, exactly, does understanding the nature of the Covenant help us
grow
spiritually? Does it help non-Baha'is? Are we supposed to demonstrate
our
faith in God to non-Baha'is, or just to Baha'is?
Thanks for reading.
--Kent
"tsuki190" <tsuki190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:yP2dnXgwnfWtILPVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kent,
This is pretty insulting to Susan. I am surprised that the moderators
pass
ed
it. Are you one of the moderators? See comments below.
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Kent Johnson <kent@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Hi Susan,
>
>> It isn't a question of whether the
>> Teachings are part of the Covenant. The issue is that their connection
>> with the Covenant lies in our acknowledgement of the authority of Him
>> who revealed them.
>
> Baha'u'llah's own acceptance of the Cause of the Bab was with words to
th
e
> effect that if the Q'uran was from God so are these verses.
>
> Is it okay, according to your interpretation of the scripture of your
> religion, Susan, for someone to accept Baha'u'llah because she accepts
Hi
s
> teachings? Can such a person become a Baha'i?
I think this is in reply to Susan's comment that _just_ accepting some of
t
he
teachings is not sufficient for becoming a Baha'i. The things that will
en
able
the Baha'i Faith to transform the world are the Covenant and the
Administra
tive
Order. Without the unifying power of these twin institutions, the Baha'is
would just splinter into another welter of sects as have all previous
relig
ions.
>
> And if Baha'u'llah says that His teachings will bring us nigh unto God,
i
s
> it okay for us, according to your interpretation of your religion, to do
> that? Can we try to reach God's Presence, Susan?
Of course we should draw closer to God. You really need to ask? How does
understanding the nature of the Covenant and accepting the authority of
the
Administration keep us from spiritual growth? It looks to me like a
powerf
ul
enabler.
Cheers,
Tom
>
> --Kent
>
>
>
> "Susan Maneck" <smaneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:xpmdnavZRuE5a7DVnZ2dnUVZ_o3inZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> People who believe Baha'is are all about following universal teachings
o
f
>> unity and self-betterment cannot become Baha'is, because you and your
il
k
>> have excluded them due to your legalistic interpretation of
Baha'u'llah'
s
>> clear teachings.
>
> Dear Kent,
>
> If by this you mean that people who accept the social teachings but
> not Baha'u'llah Himself cannot be Baha'is, I suppose that is true. But
> I would hardly call that legalistic. Why join a religion if you don't
> believe in the one who founded it? There are plenty of social clubs
> which have principles similar to the Baha'i Faith.
>
>>
>> The Guardian and 'Abdu'l-Baha made becoming a Baha'i a challenge, a
life
'
> s
>> work, a beautiful commitment, a way to find God.
>
> The Guardian also insisted it involved the following:
>
> Regarding the very delicate and complex question of ascertaining the
> qualifications of a true believer, I cannot in this connection
> emphasize too strongly the supreme necessity for the exercise of the
> utmost discretion, caution and tact, whether it be in deciding for
> ourselves as to who may be regarded a true believer or in disclosing
> to the outside world such considerations as may serve as a basis for
> such a decision. I would only venture to state very briefly and as
> adequately as present cir***stances permit the principal factors that
> must be taken into consideration before deciding whether a person may
> be regarded a true believer or not. Full recognition of the station of
> the Forerunner, the Author, and the True Exemplar of the Bahá'í Cause
,
> as set forth in 'Abdu'l-Bahá's Testament; unreserved acceptance of,
> and submission to, whatsoever has been revealed by their Pen; loyal
> and steadfast adherence to every clause of our Beloved's sacred Will;
> and close association with the spirit as well as the form of the
> present day Bahá'í administration throughout the world -- these I
> conceive to be the fundamental and primary considerations that must be
> fairly, discreetly and thoughtfully ascertained before reaching such a
> vital decision.
>
> (Shoghi Effendi, Baha'i Administration, p. 90)
>
> You make it a matter of
>> deciding which legalistic interpretation is correct,
>
> In fact, I've made very few interpretations. What I have done is bring
> to your attention those interpretations made by the Guardian.
>
> don't step on the toes
>> of im****tant people,
>
> Huh? When did I even *mention* that issue? Perhaps you are unaware
> that our Administrative Order is not about 'im****tant people?
>
> and oh yeah if you have time, there is some other
>> unim****tant stuff about just being good people, but that's mainly just
>> Pilgrim's notes.
>
> Kent, do try and pay attention. We were not talking about the Baha'i
> Faith as a whole. We were not talking about the contents of the
> Teachings, generally speaking. We were talking about the nature of the
> Covenant. The admonitions about living the Baha'i life were simply not
> all that relevant to that topic. That doesn't make the unim****tant in
> and of themselves. And when we talk about the Covenant it is
> *essential* that the texts we bring to the question are from
> authoritative sources, because as I indicated, ultimately the Covenant
> is about the authority of God's revelation and our submission to it.
>
>> The question remains, what does being a Baha'i have to do with the
Coven
a
> nt?
>
> It means we accept Baha'u'llah's Revelation.
>
>> The Baha'is of the world might never want to join the Baha'i Faith if
th
i
> s
>> is the interpretation they are force-fed.
>
> What interpretation? I think most Baha'is accepted the Faith because
> they recognized who Baha'u'llah is?
>
> Or are you referring to your imaginary strawman concept of the
> Covenant being about not stepping on im****tant people's toes?
> (Something I've been known to do on a regular basis.)
>
>> It appears to me you are interpreting the passage in question from the
>> Epistle to the Son of the Wolf to be Baha'u'llah showing off how well
He
>> writes.
>
> And where did I indicate that?
>
> He appears to be saying, look what I wrote for my son, Shaykh. To
>> me He is saying: "Here is something I wrote for my son to inspire him
to
>> devote His entire existence to God. You would do well to listen to it
a
s
>> well, Shaykh"
>
> Actually, the quote in question says nothing about devoting ones
> entire existence to God. But yes, He would like our Shaykh to follow
> those admonitions as well.
>
> Presumably we all would. But not according to Susan. The
>> teachings of Baha'u'llah aren't part of His Covenant, are they, Susan?
>
> You are missing the point, Kent. It isn't a question of whether the
> Teachings are part of the Covenant. The issue is that their connection
> with the Covenant lies in our acknowledgement of the authority of Him
> who revealed them.
>
> But exclusivists like you, Susan,
>> discount all that.
>
> Once again your use of 'exclusivists' makes no logical sense. Or at
> least you haven't explained it in a way that makes sense.
>
> You are leading
>> people away from God.
>
> Really? And who exactly am I leading away and what evidence do you
> have for this?
>>
>> You are blindfolded if that is what you believe, Susan.
>
>
>
> Do you want to know how? Be generous in prosperity and thankful in
>> adversity. Be worthy of the trust of your neighbor and look upon him
wi
t
> h a
>> bright and friendly face. This is the Covenant. This is how one might
b
> e
>> brought "nigh unto God" and it isn't just for the Shaykh and a branch
or
>> two. It is for everyone. Denying this, Susan, means you have gone
astr
a
> y.
>
> You take a single passage from Baha'u'llah's Writings on an entirely
> different topic from the Covenant and assert categorically that this
> is the Covenant. Then you say that if I deny this it means I have gone
> astray. When exactly did you become the authoritative interpreter?
>
>>
>> > Or are you projecting your own fears on me?
>>
>> Yep, that's it. My fear is that Baha'is are more interested in
pleasing
> the
>> administration than pleasing Baha'u'llah, than finding God.
>
> Which suggests you don't really believe that the Administrative Order
> is a channel for God's will. Instead you want to associate it with
> "im****tant people" ignoring entirely Abdu'l-Baha's own words:
>
> Let it not be imagined that the House of Justice will take any
> decision according to its own concepts and opinions. God forbid! The
> Supreme House of Justice will take decisions and establish laws
> through the inspiration and confirmation of the Holy Spirit, because
> it is in the safekeeping and under the shelter and protection of the
> Ancient Beauty, and obedience to its decisions is a bounden and
> essential duty and an absolute obligation, and there is no escape for
> anyone.
>
> Say, O People: Verily the Supreme House of Justice is under the wings
> of your Lord, the Compassionate, the All-Merciful, that is under His
> protection, His care, and His shelter; for He has commanded the firm
> believers to obey that blessed, sanctified, and all-subduing body,
> whose sovereignty is divinely ordained and of the Kingdom of Heaven
> and whose laws are inspired and spiritual.
>
> (The Universal House of Justice, 1966 May 27, Guardian****p and the UHJ)
>
> The Baha'i Administrative Order is not about 'im****tant people' and
> anyone who imagines it is has sadly misunderstood its nature.
>
> I
>> think you should be generous in prosperity.....
>
> And you don't know that I'm not.
>
> Susan
|
