Brent:
In like manner, though the subject of Paragraph 42 of the Aqdas is the
wakf, the endowments dedicated to charity, the contents have reference
to the institution of the Guardianship, and to the all-important matter
of the succession after the Manifestation.
Dear Brent,
I cannot see what
Gilberto,
At 12:49 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
Mark?
I think the above is a good example of perennialist triumphalism. The
perenialist decides what the original religion was or wasn't, despite what
that religion may say about itself.
No, Susan wrote that. However, I would agree with it.
Hi, Gilberto,
I wrote:
However, I assume you believe in contextualizing some sort of timeless (?)
essentialist morality.
You replied:
Sure. Except I'm not sure I can clearly even imagine the alternative. My
understanding of existentialism would suggest an individual boldly making
whatever
Gilberto,
At 06:50 PM 1/30/2005, you wrote:
Yes, I know. Existentialism and Essentialism are often contrasted. So if Mark
is opposing essentialist morality it suggests or at least raises the
possibility that he is defending some version of existentialism.
Okay. I wasn't sure why you referred
Susan:
That
strikes me as as big a leap as reading the Guardianship into that passage. My
point is not so much that the verse points toa Guardian as that
itestablishes that the Universal House of Justice can exist without one.
Dear
Susan,
My understanding from
Baha'u'llah's Writings is
In my personal gestalt, I have often equated Sartre with Warholesque
theatricalism. For existential think, I far prefer Albert Camus and Soren
Kirkegaard.
Well, Camus certainly perfected the art of tragedy.
What about Sartre do you think is pop culturist?
Regards, Mark A. Foster
I don't think Baha'u'llah says anything explicitly on this matter
whatsoever. However, the particular passage in question most definitely
presumes that a House can operate without an Aghsan.
While technically your last sentence is correct, the fact remains that
Baha'u'llah did not say anything
I thought this too, until someone suggested to me that
the guidance of the first Guardian as laid down in
numerous letters could be seen as that there is still
a Guardian, and that the Universal House of Justice
consults with the Guardian when they consult his
letters.
Whoever suggested
Endowments dedicated to charity revert to God, the Revealer of Signs. None
hath the right to dispose of them without leave from Him Who is the
Dawning-place of Revelation.
This passage of the Kitab Aqdas is clear. Even manner of disposition of the
House of the Bab in Shiraz, which was
Personally, I don't think that the concept of not *mutilating* the World Order
of Baha'u'llah is directly connected with the House focusing on Shoghi
Effendi's interpretations. Rather, consulting those interpretations, when
applicable, is one of the *implications* of avoiding such mutilation.
Ahang: Yes, but exact same thing is stated in regard to all
Spiritual Assemblies. That is, in consultation, they are all
recipient of Divine Guidance.
Dear Ahang,
Are there prerequisites outlined for the Universal House of
Justice that enables them to be recipients of Divine Guidance
as it is
When Abdu'l-Baha expanded this membership to include the Guardian of the
Cause,
He also expanded the scope of the House of Justice to include such things as
ruling on things that cause differences, etc.
Dear Ahang,
Might it be more precise to say when He made further elucidations as to
In a hierarchical reading, it would suggest that the primary decision about
disposition of the waqf resides with the Aghsan, but the House of Justice,
when
formed, has a role in execution of this decision.
That is, it could be understood that the House of Justice, when formed,
would
assist
In a message dated 1/31/2005 7:44:35 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Ahang,That's not how I recall his comments. My recollection is that he expected to*convene* the House of Justice, not just help with its election. I take thisto mean that he might very well have
I have often thought that if the Guardian had survived, and actually
convened the first House of Justice, the first order of business might have
been to address the nature of the succession of the Guardian. But that was
not to be.
Dear Scott,
But there is nothing in the Will and Testament that
In a message dated 1/31/2005 8:54:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Scott,But there is nothing in the Will and Testament that indicates that the Househas anything to do with the issue of succession. That was supposed to bebetween the Guardian and the Hands.
But
Personally, I don't think that the concept of not *mutilating* the World
Order of Baha'u'llah is directly connected with the House focusing on Shoghi
Effendi's interpretations. Rather, consulting those interpretations, when
applicable, is one of the *implications* of avoiding such mutilation.
There were no successors, the whole question of a Guardianship outside
the succession would be a matter for legislation by the House IF, IF it
were led by the Guardian acting as the Guardian.
Dear Scott,
If it were a matter of legislation it would be a matter of legislation with
or without a
Hi, Susan,
At 10:01 PM 1/31/2005, you wrote:
Yes, but those things aren't matters of authoriative interpretation. It is
those intepretations which will continue to be authoritative.
No, but I think they are, at least in some instances, *applications* of the
Guardian's interpretations to
In a message dated 1/31/2005 10:02:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dear Scott,If it were a matter of legislation it would be a matter of legislation withor without a Guardian.warmest, Susan
The House is a consultative body. Where else would the Guardian have found to
20 matches
Mail list logo
