Re: Baha'i Exclusivism for REAL

Hi Susan, this is a perfect example.  You don't believe the Covenant of 
Baha'u'llah means we need to follow the commands of Baha'u'llah and 
therefore His command to follow the commands of 'Abdu'l-Baha, and in turn 
His commmand to follow the commands of Shoghi Effendi.

That is your interpretation of the Writings, presumably based upon some 
esoteric function of what words meant in contexts through translators and 
historical derivations of meaning.

My interpretation of the Writings is simpler, in my opinion.  I believe
the 
Covenant of Baha'u'llah means we need to follow those commands.

Perhaps you don't think Baha'u'llah is commanding us when He says "Be 
generous..." or that when 'Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi says: *Be a
Baha'i* 
in so many words those are not commands.

But my interpretation is simpler: A command is a command.

-- Kent


"Susan Maneck" <smaneck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:-vSdnZ5Tz5WWY7LVnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> This says, and please correct me, that you don't believe the Covenant
of
>> Baha'u'llah means that we should be like the Baha'is 'Abdu'l-Baha 
>> advises:
>> "If any one of you enters a city he must become the center of
attraction
>> because of the sincerity, faithfulness,
>
> Yes, we should be like the Baha'is described in that passage.
>
> No, it is not what the Covenant means.
>
>> This is not the Baha'i Faith?  Or it is just an aside, not im****tant
like
>> the Covenant of Baha'u'llah.
>
> Didn't say it wasn't part of the Baha'i Faith. Didn't say it wasn't
> im****tant. I just said it isn't the Covenant. It isn't peanut butter
> either.  It isn't any less im****tant for that.
>
> Susan
>