Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: "John MacLeod" <jrmacleod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:59:33 +1100
<smaneck@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1134618423.863751.238880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> when the observable process by
> > which the law comes into being is essentially the same as the way other
bodies
> > make laws.
>
> But it isn't. Secular legislative bodies make their decisions on the
> basis of satisfying specific continuencies.
Note I said 'observable' process. You've just given me a theory.
Incidentally, if by 'satisfying specific continuencies' you mean that they are
" anxiously concerned with the needs of the age (they) live in," or "they may
act according to the needs and requirements of the time." I would agree with
you.
Did you mean constituencies? As in "It is incumbent upon them to have the
utmost regard for the interests of the people at all times and under all
conditions."?
>The trustees of the House
> of Justice are responsible to God, not the electorate and must make
> their decision on the basis of principle arrived at through the
> consultative process. It is that process which serves as the conduit of
> the Holy Spirit.
Well, Tony Blair is responsible to the Queen not the people and as a committed
Christian would recognise his ultimate responsibility to God. I feel sure
that he would feel the decisions of His cabinet are taken on principle after
consultation.
I guess I'm just saying that these claims made on the way the UHJ takes
decisions may be true - how could I possibly tell if they are or not? But
there's nothing unique or even unusual about the nature of the claims. The
'conduit of the Holy Spirit' phrase is almost a cliche amongst religious
people who all seem to think that their leadership has that nature. Unless we
can demonstrate that there is something special about the UHJ I don't see
much point in making the claims. Unless, of course, we are prepared to accept
that other bodies may also be conduits for the Holy Spirit. Do you know
anything in the Writings that says only the UHJ can be a conduit?
>
> Well, that is what religion is about. ;-}
Seriously, do you think thats true. It has never been my approach to
religion. How do you reconcile 'belief' with not holding personal opinions.
>
> > In the terms in which I and most people I talk to use 'executive' and
> > 'legislature' the above simply says that the Houses of Justice perform
some
> > executive functions. That a careful study of the historical roots of the
> > Baha'i ideas might indicate that this wasn't the way the terms were used
at
> > the time may be interesting to some people but is not important.
>
> It is indeed important if we want to figure out what Baha'u'llah meant.
You miss the point. If what is clearly specified as a duty/right of the House
is, in modern terms, an executive function, then the we should say so when
speaking in modern English in a modern society. Anything that helps us
understand that duty/right is of course important but once we understand the
duty/right, what it would have been called at the time is not important.
Let me ask you directly, do you think the Houses' responsibility for education
is purely what we would now call legislative?
>
> However the revelatory text says that we have to turn towards
> Abdu'l-Baha when we don't understand anything in the text. And
> Abdu'l-Baha in turn pointed to Shoghi Effendi and the House of Justice.
But the text makes no assumptions as to whether we will understand AB/SE/UHJ.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: Sufi Bahá'í
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: Sufi Bahá'í
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: Steve Marshall
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: John MacLeod
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: John MacLeod
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: John MacLeod
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: John MacLeod
- Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- From: smaneck
- Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- Prev by Date: Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- Next by Date: Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- Previous by thread: Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- Next by thread: Re: Can someone make sense out of this theologian thing for me?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|