Brent, At 09:48 PM 1/23/2004, you quoted the Guardian's secretary: >>The only answer we can give people who lack the faith to accept the words of the >>Master as being divinely inspired interpretations of the truth, is that the language >>of prophecy has always in the past been veiled in meaning, and that allusions are >>found in all the Holy Books which cannot be accepted literally, and have not been >>satisfactorily interpreted until the appearance of this Revelation when, we believe, >>the books of the past and their mysteries have been at last unsealed.<<
I think that is the main point. We accept `Abdu'l-Baha's interpretation because, as the Guardian appears to have claimed, He had the authority to make it. >>Could anybody find a more logical interpretation of this allusion in the Zoroastrian >>literature than that given by `Abdu'l-Baha, or one which fits a coherent >>interpretation of religious history as well as the Master's words do?"<< IMO, it is substantively logical (Wertrationalitäet), as Weber used the term, in the sense that it follows from the assumptions of the Master. The Guardian also believed that it was isomorphic with religious history, which would be closer to Weber's formal or instrumental rationality (Zweckrationalitäet). Mark A. Foster * http://MarkFoster.net http://CompuServe.MarkFoster.name __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Web - http://list.jccc.net/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
