Sense from nonsense
compx2
qualities to the inanimate, we change our way of thinking based upon
the position of stars. We do all manner of rationalization and
justification based upon very, very little or no evidence.
Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit and wonder why, why
why?
Tigger gotta rest, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself he
understand.
From Kurt Vonnegut's "Cat's Cradle" in a holy scripture attributed to
a religion invented in that book.
Religion rationalizes based on little or no evidence, generally. The
Baha'i Faith, in my version, does not do that. But in the version of
every other Baha'i I have ever spoken with or had any sort of
discussion in any way, the Baha'i Faith is just as nonsensical as
every other over rationalization of the unknown.
Case in point another recent discussion here in the How Is Baha'i
Different thread. Well, we are told Baha'i is different mainly
because of the Covenant. Therefore, ipso facto, it is obvious that
any ills or problems any other religion ever had cannot ever become
our problem because we have a Covenant.
Nevermind that such logic is wrong, that other religions have
covenants, that problems are not solved by covenants, etc etc etc.
We make sense of nonsense based upon no evidence. The Covenant
pertains to some aspects of social behavior, such as dowries, criminal
punishment, prohibitions etc. There are also admonitions, commands
for good behavior but these are ignored by Baha'is in favor of
avoiding the prohibitions. Nevermind that the Book of the Covenant
has commands and admonitions for good behavior, we are told the Book
of the Covenant is not a part of the Covenant, only the prohibitions.
Therefore if we behave according to the common understanding of the
Covenant expounded by practically every Baha'i everywhere we will
never have problems at all, ever, for every member of our religion.
And since that proposition doesn't make sense we rationalize further
that some things are understood by behavior. Yes, you heard me. That
is a proposition of this religion, apparently.
Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But it takes a
religion to make good people do bad things.
Think about it. Is there a religion that makes sense? Well, mine
does, but no one is interested. It seems Baha'is are more interested
in being sure the Baha'i Faith makes no sense at all.
--Kent
Douglas McAdam
see inserts.
On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:10 AM, compx2 wrote:
> An essential human trait is to make sense of nonsense. We attribute
> qualities to the inanimate, we change our way of thinking based upon
> the position of stars. We do all manner of rationalization and
> justification based upon very, very little or no evidence.
It is impossible to make sense out of nonsense. Non-sense is non-
sense. It cannot be sensible. I agree that we certainly are guilty
of trying to rationalize based on little evidence or no evidence. But
I have no idea what this has to do with our discussions.
>
> Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit and wonder why, why
> why?
> Tigger gotta rest, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself he
> understand.
>
> a religion invented in that book.
>
> Religion rationalizes based on little or no evidence, generally. The
> Baha'i Faith, in my version, does not do that. But in the version of
> every other Baha'i I have ever spoken with or had any sort of
> discussion in any way, the Baha'i Faith is just as nonsensical as
> every other over rationalization of the unknown.
According to what I read there are two types of religion, i.e. the
divinely revealed type and what we understand and apply of what is
revealed. What we understand and apply is an evolutionary process.
None of us are infallible authorities.
>
> Case in point another recent discussion here in the How Is Baha'i
> Different thread. Well, we are told Baha'i is different mainly
> because of the Covenant. Therefore, ipso facto, it is obvious that
> any ills or problems any other religion ever had cannot ever become
> our problem because we have a Covenant.
We are all living souls in seed form and yet each is different and
unique. Baha'is are different and unique and so are the followers of
other religions. From what I have read the spiritual teachings in all
religions are the same but the social teachings are different.
Baha'is have new social teachings (the Covenant includes the entire
Revelation)
This is the fulfillment of all former prophecy and hence Bahai's and
the Baha'i Faith is different.
>
> Nevermind that such logic is wrong, that other religions have
> covenants, that problems are not solved by covenants, etc etc etc.
So your logic is right and all others is wrong? Where in the
Revelations of any religion do you find the authority to make such an
infallible statement?
>
> We make sense of nonsense based upon no evidence. The Covenant
> pertains to some aspects of social behavior, such as dowries, criminal
> punishment, prohibitions etc. There are also admonitions, commands
> for good behavior but these are ignored by Baha'is in favor of
> avoiding the prohibitions. Nevermind that the Book of the Covenant
> has commands and admonitions for good behavior, we are told the Book
> of the Covenant is not a part of the Covenant, only the prohibitions.
First of all the Covenant is much more than what you are saying,
according to what I read in the Baha'i Writings. The infallible
interpreter of the Writings, the Beloved Master said the following --–
Abdu'l-Baha, from Tablet, Star of West, Vol. 1, #242.
".…Today, the Lord of Hosts is the defender of the Covenant, the
forces of the Kingdom protect it, heavenly souls tender their services
and heavenly angels promulgate and spread it broadcast. If it is
considered with insight, it will be seen that all the forces of the
universe, in the last analysis serve the Covenant."
From what I read in the Baha'i Writings every religion has had a
Covenant starting with the Greater Covenant of Abraham. Each Covenant
is different in some respects and similar in others and each serves to
bring us a new level of spiritual development.
I have never heard of anyone saying the Book of the Covenant is not
part of the Covenant. The Covenant includes and is comprised of the
entire Revelation, from what I have read.
>
> Therefore if we behave according to the common understanding of the
> Covenant expounded by practically every Baha'i everywhere we will
> never have problems at all, ever, for every member of our religion.
I have never heard any Baha'i say this either. We will always have
problems for the very same Revelation of Baha'u'llah tells us these
tests and difficulties are the means of our spiritual progress,
depending if we handle them appropriately.
>
> And since that proposition doesn't make sense we rationalize further
> that some things are understood by behavior. Yes, you heard me. That
> is a proposition of this religion, apparently.
I agree that proposition does not make sense but I do not know of any
Baha'i trying to rationalize it as you say. And I would state
unequivocally that to my understanding there is nothing in the
Writings that would rationalize that statement. When you say that is
a proposition of this religion to what religion do you refer.
Certainly not the Baha'i Faith for sure.
>
> Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But it takes a
> religion to make good people do bad things.
Huh!. This makes no sense to me. Çan you show us some quotes that say
this? I am not used to using the term "good people" or "bad people"
cause to me the soul is inherently good but our behavior can be good
or bad.
>
> Think about it. Is there a religion that makes sense? Well, mine
> does, but no one is interested. It seems Baha'is are more interested
> in being sure the Baha'i Faith makes no sense at all.
I think the Baha'i Religion, which is coming from Baha'i Revelation,
in other words a divinely revealed religion makes pure sense but our
application, our personal interpretations of it differ and some may or
may not make sense.
What bothers me Kent is that you "believe" your version of the Baha'i
Faith makes sense and all other Baha'is don't make sense. I have not
read anything in the Writings appointing anyone else but the Master as
the Official Interpreter and Exemplar of the Baha'i Faith.
All I know is that anytime a Baha'i posts anything here and produces
quotes you argue they are trying to make sense out of nonsense and
your version is the one that is sensible and yet you cannot produce
any quotes from the Baha'i Revelation to back up your understanding.
So I guess there is no way to discuss anything since you already have
the only true and sensible version. You keep saying no one is
interested in your version but yet you do not provide any quotes from
your version so how can we know what you mean?
peace,
doug
>
> --Kent
>
Douglas McAdam
see inserts.
On Nov 28, 2009, at 9:10 AM, compx2 wrote:
> An essential human trait is to make sense of nonsense. We attribute
> qualities to the inanimate, we change our way of thinking based upon
> the position of stars. We do all manner of rationalization and
> justification based upon very, very little or no evidence.
It is impossible to make sense out of nonsense. Non-sense is non-
sense. It cannot be sensible. I agree that we certainly are guilty
of trying to rationalize based on little evidence or no evidence. But
I have no idea what this has to do with our discussions.
>
> Tiger gotta hunt, bird gotta fly, man gotta sit and wonder why, why
> why?
> Tigger gotta rest, bird gotta land, man gotta tell himself he
> understand.
>
> a religion invented in that book.
>
> Religion rationalizes based on little or no evidence, generally. The
> Baha'i Faith, in my version, does not do that. But in the version of
> every other Baha'i I have ever spoken with or had any sort of
> discussion in any way, the Baha'i Faith is just as nonsensical as
> every other over rationalization of the unknown.
According to what I read there are two types of religion, i.e. the
divinely revealed type and what we understand and apply of what is
revealed. What we understand and apply is an evolutionary process.
None of us are infallible authorities.
>
> Case in point another recent discussion here in the How Is Baha'i
> Different thread. Well, we are told Baha'i is different mainly
> because of the Covenant. Therefore, ipso facto, it is obvious that
> any ills or problems any other religion ever had cannot ever become
> our problem because we have a Covenant.
We are all living souls in seed form and yet each is different and
unique. Baha'is are different and unique and so are the followers of
other religions. From what I have read the spiritual teachings in all
religions are the same but the social teachings are different.
Baha'is have new social teachings (the Covenant includes the entire
Revelation)
This is the fulfillment of all former prophecy and hence Bahai's and
the Baha'i Faith is different.
>
> Nevermind that such logic is wrong, that other religions have
> covenants, that problems are not solved by covenants, etc etc etc.
So your logic is right and all others is wrong? Where in the
Revelations of any religion do you find the authority to make such an
infallible statement?
>
> We make sense of nonsense based upon no evidence. The Covenant
> pertains to some aspects of social behavior, such as dowries, criminal
> punishment, prohibitions etc. There are also admonitions, commands
> for good behavior but these are ignored by Baha'is in favor of
> avoiding the prohibitions. Nevermind that the Book of the Covenant
> has commands and admonitions for good behavior, we are told the Book
> of the Covenant is not a part of the Covenant, only the prohibitions.
First of all the Covenant is much more than what you are saying,
according to what I read in the Baha'i Writings. The infallible
interpreter of the Writings, the Beloved Master said the following --–
Abdu'l-Baha, from Tablet, Star of West, Vol. 1, #242.
".…Today, the Lord of Hosts is the defender of the Covenant, the
forces of the Kingdom protect it, heavenly souls tender their services
and heavenly angels promulgate and spread it broadcast. If it is
considered with insight, it will be seen that all the forces of the
universe, in the last analysis serve the Covenant."
From what I read in the Baha'i Writings every religion has had a
Covenant starting with the Greater Covenant of Abraham. Each Covenant
is different in some respects and similar in others and each serves to
bring us a new level of spiritual development.
I have never heard of anyone saying the Book of the Covenant is not
part of the Covenant. The Covenant includes and is comprised of the
entire Revelation, from what I have read.
>
> Therefore if we behave according to the common understanding of the
> Covenant expounded by practically every Baha'i everywhere we will
> never have problems at all, ever, for every member of our religion.
I have never heard any Baha'i say this either. We will always have
problems for the very same Revelation of Baha'u'llah tells us these
tests and difficulties are the means of our spiritual progress,
depending if we handle them appropriately.
>
> And since that proposition doesn't make sense we rationalize further
> that some things are understood by behavior. Yes, you heard me. That
> is a proposition of this religion, apparently.
I agree that proposition does not make sense but I do not know of any
Baha'i trying to rationalize it as you say. And I would state
unequivocally that to my understanding there is nothing in the
Writings that would rationalize that statement. When you say that is
a proposition of this religion to what religion do you refer.
Certainly not the Baha'i Faith for sure.
>
> Good people do good things. Bad people do bad things. But it takes a
> religion to make good people do bad things.
Huh!. This makes no sense to me. Çan you show us some quotes that say
this? I am not used to using the term "good people" or "bad people"
cause to me the soul is inherently good but our behavior can be good
or bad.
>
> Think about it. Is there a religion that makes sense? Well, mine
> does, but no one is interested. It seems Baha'is are more interested
> in being sure the Baha'i Faith makes no sense at all.
I think the Baha'i Religion, which is coming from Baha'i Revelation,
compx2
> It is impossible to make sense out of nonsense
I am sorry, I misspoke. It is the human condition to try to relate
the unrelated, to swear to and live our lives as though random,
illogical and silly words actually hold reason and are worthy of
blindly pledging our allegiances and our lives.
It is this that is, for the most part, every religion.
Thank you for helping me clarify that point.
--Kent
On Nov 28, 5:57 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> > --Kent- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
compx2
You:
> According to what I read there are two types of religion, i.e. the
> divinely revealed type and what we understand and apply of what is
> revealed. What we understand and apply is an evolutionary process.
> None of us are infallible authorities.
Case in point: According to what you have read? What does whether or
not you anyone else having read something or other have to do with
anything? Perhaps you mean to say that some people categorize
religions as to whether or not they are divinely revealed? Why would
we/they do that? Is there something good about such a
categorization? And how do we decide what is "divine"? And as I
asked you in another message, what is "spiritual"?
You:
> Baha'is are different and unique and so are the followers of
> other religions.
We are all unique. But such information is hardly useful.
You:
> So your logic is right and all others is wrong? Where in the
> Revelations of any religion do you find the authority to make such an
> infallible statement?
A logical statement follows rules of logic, like a mathematical
statement follows the rules of mathematics. One may examine a
statement independently and clearly see whether or not a statement is
logical. If you would like me explain this more fully I will.
You:
> I have never heard of anyone saying the Book of the Covenant is not
> part of the Covenant. The Covenant includes and is comprised of the
> entire Revelation, from what I have read.
I am glad to hear you say that.
"Every receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the fragrance of
His garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards the all-
glorious Horizon is reckoned among the people of Baha in the Crimson
Book. Grasp ye, in My Name, the chalice of My loving-kindness, drink
then your fill in My glorious and wondrous remembrance. (Baha'u'llah,
Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 220)"
Those who believe in the power of the Covenant, then, must drink our
fill of His glorous and wondrous remembrance as a condition of the
Covenant, right? I will be very pleased if you agree with me on this
point.
The other point is that the Covenant cannot protect or help in any way
those of us who do not do our part in the Covenant. Are we on the
same page?
--Kent
On Nov 28, 5:57 pm, Douglas McAdam <douglasmca...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
Douglas McAdam
Can you give me an example of this please?
I do not see the Bahai Faith, our religion as having these
characteristics and nor do I find most Baha'is having this either.
doug
diamondsouled
One method I've found that helps for me is to view what religionists
term as revelation as art. Not all art being good art or equal as art.
Appreciation of religious revelation is like the appreciation of art.
Some works are better than others. Then you get to the
interpretational secondary material and this is even more prone to
subjectiveness.
I think that getting at what Abdu'l-Baha termed as the: "original
intention" of religion can begin to strip away some of the nonsense.
IMHO it is those worthy concepts such as the oneness of humanity, the
equality of women with men, equity for all regardless of race,
ethnicity, nationality, religion gender, that are the original
intention for religion. In so far as some of the outer aspects of
religion are conducive to the actualization of those worthy concepts
they useful and in so far some of those outer aspects are barriers to
the actualization of those worthy concepts they are worse than
useless.
I've come to believe that any such worthy concepts stand all on their
own, quite apart from the outer aspect of religion, and that such
concepts only become meaningful if they are actually lived not only
given lip service.
Cheers
Larry Rowe
Douglas McAdam
On Nov 29, 2009, at 12:21 PM, compx2 wrote:
> Hi Doug,
>
> You:
>
>> According to what I read there are two types of religion, i.e. the
>> divinely revealed type and what we understand and apply of what is
>> revealed. What we understand and apply is an evolutionary process.
>> None of us are infallible authorities.
>
> Case in point: According to what you have read? What does whether or
> not you anyone else having read something or other have to do with
> anything? Perhaps you mean to say that some people categorize
> religions as to whether or not they are divinely revealed? Why would
> we/they do that? Is there something good about such a
> categorization? And how do we decide what is "divine"? And as I
> asked you in another message, what is "spiritual"?
Well Kent, I am not trying to convince anyone else of my beliefs. I
offer what I have discovered as Truth/truth and answer questions as
best I can but as to how I know this is the Truth, well that is
because I have tested it logically and experientially when possible.
I say when possible for there are many truths in Revelation that we
have yet to discover and experience.
As I said before we have the power of faith which enables us to accept
an Enlightener and what He reveals and we have the powers of the
senses and intellect to enable us to experience what we accept on
faith and that then produces conscious knowledge not just beliefs. I
accept and believe there is a God. I accept and believe in the
Manifestation of God, Baha'u'llah. I accept and believe in all that
He has revealed to us. All we can know is what God reveals to us
through His Manifestation.
If someone disagrees with this then that is there problem, not mine
but I will do what I can to help clear up any misunderstandings but I
am not going to argue and debate each point.
>
> You:
>> Baha'is are different and unique and so are the followers of
>> other religions.
>
> We are all unique. But such information is hardly useful.
It is useful to me, because sometimes some folks try to make
statements that indicate certain people are alike, such as saying bad
people, good people, how Baha'is are and other general comments.
>
> You:
>> So your logic is right and all others is wrong? Where in the
>> Revelations of any religion do you find the authority to make such an
>> infallible statement?
>
> A logical statement follows rules of logic, like a mathematical
> statement follows the rules of mathematics. One may examine a
> statement independently and clearly see whether or not a statement is
> logical. If you would like me explain this more fully I will.
I have asked you many times to explain your logic and also I would
need a quote from the Writings. When it comes to understanding the
Writings the House of Justice has told us that current methodologies
are simply not sufficient and we must develop a new one. When in
college I took many classes on philosophy and other social sciences,
and was exposed to critical thinking, the rules, etc. and so I'm not
exactly unfamiliar with what you said about a logical statement.
However I also know that these rules, this type of thinking is
dependent on our limited development of our knowing powers. I have in
my possession a simple program of personal transformation that many
Ph.Ds and other credited scholars do not understand and yet simple and
quite uneducated people grasp it readily except they need help in
learning word definitions.
What may appear logical to you may not t me and others. Again I find
quotes from the Writings that say to me that understanding is not
always coming from having strong academic education when it comes to
spiritual realities -
~~~~~~~
The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances
of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning.
They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom
of spirit. This is evidenced by those who, today, though without a
single letter of the accepted standards of learning, are occupying the
loftiest seats of knowledge; and the garden of their hearts is
adorned, through the showers of divine grace, with the roses of
wisdom and the tulips of understanding. (Baha'u'llah, "Kitab-i-
Iqan," p. 211)
“An humble man without learning, but filled with the Holy Spirit, is
more powerful than the most nobly-born scholar without the
insipration. He who is educated by the Divine Spirit, can, in his
time, leads others to receive the same Spirit.” PT. p165
> You:
>> I have never heard of anyone saying the Book of the Covenant is not
>> part of the Covenant. The Covenant includes and is comprised of the
>> entire Revelation, from what I have read.
>
> I am glad to hear you say that.
>
> "Every receptive soul who hath in this Day inhaled the fragrance of
> His garment and hath, with a pure heart, set his face towards the all-
> glorious Horizon is reckoned among the people of Baha in the Crimson
> Book. Grasp ye, in My Name, the chalice of My loving-kindness, drink
> then your fill in My glorious and wondrous remembrance. (Baha'u'llah,
> Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 220)"
Most Baha'is I know over the years know this Kent.
>
> Those who believe in the power of the Covenant, then, must drink our
> fill of His glorous and wondrous remembrance as a condition of the
> Covenant, right? I will be very pleased if you agree with me on this
> point.
Of course, how could anyone disagree when the quote is so clear? Or
does it depend on one's logic?
>
> The other point is that the Covenant cannot protect or help in any way
> those of us who do not do our part in the Covenant. Are we on the
> same page?
According to my understanding the important thing is that we strive to
obey the Covenant. We may not always be totally obedient but we do
need to strive daily. Also I would say that we are protected by the
Covenant even if we may do something wrong. Consider this quote --
I adjure Thee by Thy might, O my God! Let no harm beset me in times of
tests, and in moments of heedlessness guide my steps aright through
Thine inspiration. Thou art God, potent art Thou to do what Thou
desirest. No one can withstand Thy Will or thwart Thy Purpose.
—The Bab
So from what I read in the Writings I would not be quite so absolute
about such things as protection.
doug
Baha'i
This discussion is simply because different folks here have different
understandings of what the Covenant is. I have no problem with that,
I do not seek to impose my view on anyone else.
Every previous revelation has a Covenant, in the sense that the
Revealer, the Prophet, promised that another Manifestation would come
in the future, and the part of humanity in that Covenant, is to accept
Him when He comes. This is part of what Shoghi Effendi terms the
Greater Covenant, i.e. the Covenant concerning the series of
Manifestations of God.
Every previous revelation has a Covenant, in the sense that the
Manifestation provides laws and teachings to His followers, and takes
from them a Covenant to follow those laws and teachings. In return,
those who do, receive blessings from God. This is what George
Townshend calls the Ethical Covenant.
Some previous Revelations have a Covenant of Successorship, which is
part of what Shoghi Effendi terms the Lesser Covenant. The Lesser
Covenant is a Covenant with the followers, telling them who to turn
to, before the next Manifestation appears. The Lesser Covenant in
this Dispensation is first, to turn to Abdu'l-Baha, then to turn to
the twin institutions of the House of Justice and the Guardianship.
Some prior Dispensations have a Lesser Covenant. In one place, the
Covenant of Christ concerning Peter is referred to as the "implicit"
Covenant of Christ. I can't find the reference for that right now.
Muhammad made a Covenant to turn to Ali; but did not write it down.
The Covenant of Baha'u'llah; or more correctly, what Shoghi Effendi
terms the twin Covenants of Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha; is absolutely
unique. It is the first time that the Lesser Covenant has been written
down. It is the first time that the identity of the successor has
been specified by name, in writing. And this is the guarantee to
which you refer:
"It should be noted in this connection that this Administrative Order
is fundamentally different from anything that any Prophet has
previously established, inasmuch as Bahá'u'lláh has Himself revealed
its principles, established its institutions, appointed the person to
interpret His Word and conferred the necessary authority on the body
designed to supplement and apply His legislative ordinances. Therein
lies the secret of its strength, its fundamental distinction, and the
guarantee against disintegration and schism. Nowhere in the sacred
scriptures of any of the world's religious systems, nor even in the
writings of the Inaugurator of the Bábí Dispensation, do we find any
provisions establishing a covenant or providing for an administrative
order that can compare in scope and authority with those that lie at
the very basis of the Bahá'í Dispensation. Has either Christianity or
Islam, to take as an instance two of the most widely diffused and
outstanding among the world's recognized religions, anything to offer
that can measure with, or be regarded as equivalent to, either the
Book of Bahá'u'lláh's Covenant or to the Will and Testament of 'Abdu'l-
Bahá? Does the text of either the Gospel or the Qur'án confer
sufficient authority upon those leaders and councils that have claimed
the right and assumed the function of interpreting the provisions of
their sacred scriptures and of administering the affairs of their
respective communities? Could Peter, the admitted chief of the
Apostles, or the Imam Ali, the cousin and legitimate successor of the
Prophet, produce in support of the primacy with which both had been
invested written and explicit affirmations from Christ and Muhammad
that could have silenced those who either among their contemporaries
or in a later age have repudiated their authority and, by their
action, precipitated the schisms that persist until the present day?
Where, we may confidently ask, in the recorded sayings of Jesus
Christ, whether in the matter of succession or in the provision of a
set of specific laws and clearly defined administrative ordinances, as
distinguished from purely spiritual principles, can we find anything
approaching the detailed injunctions, laws and warnings that abound in
the authenticated utterances of both Bahá'u'lláh and 'Abdu'l-Bahá? Ca
n
any passage of the Qur'án, which in respect to its legal code, its
administrative and devotional ordinances marks already a notable
advance over previous and more corrupted Revelations, be construed as
placing upon an unassailable basis the undoubted authority with which
Muhammad had, verbally and on several occasions, invested His
successor? Can the Author of the Bábí Dispensation however much He may
have succeeded through the provisions of the Persian Bayan in averting
a schism as permanent and catastrophic as those that afflicted
Christianity and Islam -- can He be said to have produced instruments
for the safeguarding of His Faith as definite and efficacious as those
which must for all time preserve the unity of the organized followers
of the Faith of Bahá'u'lláh?
"Alone of all the Revelations gone before it this Faith has, through
the explicit directions, the repeated warnings, the authenticated
safeguards incorporated and elaborated in its teachings, succeeded in
raising a structure which the bewildered followers of bankrupt and
broken creeds might well approach and critically examine, and seek,
ere it is too late, the invulnerable security of its world-embracing
shelter."
(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 144)
Brent
Douglas McAdam
On Dec 25, 2009, at 11:34 PM, Baha'i wrote:
> Every previous revelation has a Covenant, in the sense that the
> Revealer, the Prophet, promised that another Manifestation would come
> in the future, and the part of humanity in that Covenant, is to accept
> Him when He comes. This is part of what Shoghi Effendi terms the
> Greater Covenant, i.e. the Covenant concerning the series of
> Manifestations of God.
Hi Brent-
Thanks for the three helpful and clear posts you offered.
I seem to recall reading something somewhere that there are two main
prophecies from each Manifestation. One is that He will return and
the other is that far off in the future there will be a fulfillment of
all prophecies such as the Kingdom On Earth, the Most Great Peace, the
Golden Jubiliee and other terms. Do you recall anything like this?
Also I found an electronic copy of the booklet I mentioned titled The
Covenant and Administration published by the Baha'i Pub. Trust in
1971 but the references might need updating. I can send it if you wish.
regards,
doug