Bahá'í

[PRmerger]

No the Bahai Faith in no way proclaims the human body/temple is a source of evil

I will reiterate again, it was you who implied that it was a fleshy indulgence, not me.

No. You cited Galatians in response to the comment about the marital embrace.

Catholicism does not ascribe that verse to the sacramental union.

You did.

I am actually very happily married thank you the lovers embrace is not lost in me, but the depth of love for my wife is much deeper than that…

“…but do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh, rather serve one another humbly in love”. Gal 5:13

 

[PRmerger]

Again I reiterate, show me how the PHYSICAL act of embracing between man and wife is any different with the PHYSICAL act of embracing between drunken lusters.

Give me one piece of evidence please

I already gave you the example of the children’s drawing vs the master’s drawing. But you never addressed it.

Also, you asked for some evidence for the ECFs saying Jesus was ontologically God and I provided that for you. Can you please respond?

Also, have you found that quote yet from St. Thomas saying that ontological change is manifestly false?

 

[ChristianBahai]

I agree with you as we’ll Servant. Also the Baha’i faith teaches that science and religion should be aligned and not in conflict! God states through Baha’u’llah that any religius teaching that contradicts science is false. It’s that simple!

The Catholic Church has promoted it’s teachings that contradict science, and through the manifestation of Baha’u’llah he has stated their errors! In God’s word for our age. The truths are endless and uplifting if read and understood without the context of outdated and erroneous “human developed” doctrines.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai

I agree with you in all levels except on the physical change PR

It is when Christianity believes it can out-talk science on the subject of science where it plunders deeper AWAY from God.

You can ask any scientist to observe a cell from my body before marriage and a cell from the exact same body site, after my marriage and there is no physical change.

Superstitious beliefs is where we differ my friend.

If there was a physical change it becomes empirically observable by science and I can categorically tell you that this concept is frowned on by the scientific community.

I look forward to the essay on how science has failed throughout history from you, but this is not even science, it’s empiricism, it’s observable that there is no PHYSICAL change to the body the day after marriage, and even were there to be an argument presented that there WAS a physical change, I would still say that this is attributed to the spiritual condition exerting itself on the physical being.

The physical act is the same, one is done in the spirit of love, the other in the sin of lust, it’s really that simple. Contradicting science gets humans nowhere, it only ends in conflict, and luckily the superstitious believers are reducing in number alarmingly, and it’s for the best…

God bless you PR, you’re heart is in the right place but you have convinced yourself of truth that is utter falsehood I’m afraid

 

[arthra]

I don’t know PR…

You wrote you were not being disrespectful but

How are we endorsing polygamy in your mind by suggesting there can be a spiritual bond between a husband and wife that can last…?

I was thinking of sharing a case as an example…

My father was married to his first wife for thirty years… …and later struggled to build a home They had children together. She passed away…

My father married a second wife…She already had a family… but had worked with him in his business…

Can we say which wife he had a spiritual as well as physical relationship?

Even being his son it would be difficult for me to assess that…

So we really cannot say for sure but in the next life it’s possible…

God in His mercy knows best!

Be fair!

 

[flameburns623]

I’m going to shift the conversation for a moment.

One of the things I admire about the Baha’i Writings is the commanding use of language. One of the things I miss in the Baha’i Faith, one of the things I find captivating about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Heathenry/Paganism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, is the vivid use of visual artistry.

I can’t say I am aware of any significant use of art in the Baha’i Faith: it seems almost Islamic or Christian Protestant in eschewing spiritual imagery.

Something which is sustainable in literate cultures with ready access to the use of the printing-press and similar means of mass producing printed material. Most of human history, however, has done without such luxuries and employed statuary, artwork, and carvings to communicate spiritual truths.

Feel free to correct any misapprehension or ignorance on my part.

Comments? Responses?

 

[SteveVH]

I’m going to shift the conversation for a moment.

One of the things I admire about the Baha’i Writings is the commanding use of language. One of the things I miss in the Baha’i Faith, one of the things I find captivating about Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Heathenry/Paganism, Buddhism, and Hinduism, is the vivid use of visual artistry.

I can’t say I am aware of any significant use of art in the Baha’i Faith: it seems almost Islamic or Christian Protestant in eschewing spiritual imagery.

Something which is sustainable in literate cultures with ready access to the use of the printing-press and similar means of mass producing printed material. Most of human history, however, has done without such luxuries and employed statuary, artwork, and carvings to communicate spiritual truths.

Feel free to correct any misapprehension or ignorance on my part.

Comments? Responses?

It is probably due to the fact that the Baha’i faith is relatively modern and never depended upon statuary, artwork, etc. to communicate.

 

[daler]

I agree with you as we’ll Servant. Also the Baha’i faith teaches that science and religion should be aligned and not in conflict! God states through Baha’u’llah that any religius teaching that contradicts science is false. It’s that simple!

The Catholic Church has promoted it’s teachings that contradict science, and through the manifestation of Baha’u’llah he has stated their errors! In God’s word for our age. The truths are endless and uplifting if read and understood without the context of outdated and erroneous “human developed” doctrines.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai

“How vast the number of people who are well versed in every science, yet it is their adherence to the holy Word of God which will determine their faith, inasmuch as the fruit of every science is none other than the knowledge of divine precepts and submission unto His good-pleasure.” from the Writings of the Bab

 

[SteveVH]

I agree with you as we’ll Servant. Also the Baha’i faith teaches that science and religion should be aligned and not in conflict! God states through Baha’u’llah that any religius teaching that contradicts science is false. It’s that simple!

The Catholic Church has promoted it’s teachings that contradict science, and through the manifestation of Baha’u’llah he has stated their errors! In God’s word for our age. The truths are endless and uplifting if read and understood without the context of outdated and erroneous “human developed” doctrines.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Catholic faith in regard to science. We believe in objective truth. Truth cannot conflict with truth therefore we cannot believe in any doctrine that would conflict with scientific truth.

The Catholic Church is responsible for giving the world the scientific method and has promoted science throughout the centuries as a way to discern certain truths. The empirical sciences, however, cannot answer many of the most important questions concerning our lives and creation as a whole and are not the end all to knowledge. So the Catholic Church, while respecting and promoting scientific study is against using science as if it had a monopoly on the truth and as if it could answer questions concerning the meaning of life and death; our relationship with our Creator, etc.

 

[daler]

This is a complete misrepresentation of the Catholic faith in regard to science. We believe in objective truth. Truth cannot conflict with truth therefore we cannot believe in any doctrine that would conflict with scientific truth.

The Catholic Church is responsible for giving the world the scientific method and has promoted science throughout the centuries as a way to discern certain truths. The empirical sciences, however, cannot answer many of the most important questions concerning our lives and creation as a whole and are not the end all to knowledge. So the Catholic Church, while respecting and promoting scientific study is against using science as if it had a monopoly on the truth and as if it could answer questions concerning the meaning of life and death; our relationship with our Creator, etc.

Yes, I think that while there have been in ancient times such matters as Galileo and Copernicus, much improvement has taken place.
I’m not sure where the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches stand on such things nowadays as the 6000 year history of the earth though. Would you know?
There is a lot of “anti-Darwin” rhetoric in many of the evangelical churches, who somehow see a threat to their particular theologies. It would seem that God is the author of nature, gave us the intellect to discover its secrets, and there should never be a conflict between scientific examination and understanding religious beliefs. We need to adapt to the more precise lenses of evidence as physical reality comes into focus.
If this means we accept the overwhelming evidence of geology records and DNA, etc, this is good, for it gives us a better understanding of how God has created all things, no matter the time it took, and by what methods it has been set in motion.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m not sure where the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches stand on such things nowadays as the 6000 year history of the earth though. Would you know?

The Church does not read the creation account in a linear fashion, such as one would read a science book. Indeed, we have a text in which light is made on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars were not made until the fourth day. There is another creation account in Psalm 104 wherein the earth is described as resting on its foundation, upheld by pillars.

Genesis was written in the genre of poetic prose and employs story telling techniques that are not familiar to the modern reader. It wasn’t meant to report scientific data. It is instead a profound theological meditation on God’s act of creation. The Church remains silent on the literal 6000 years. It accepts all truth that science may bring to light on this issue, which pretty much contradicts the 6000 year theory. We certainly know for certain that we are just now receiving light from stars millions of light years away. But the Church has not made any definitive statement in this regard. Infallibility doesn’t mean the Church knows everything. It means that it cannot err and so remains silent when it does not know.

There is a lot of “anti-Darwin” rhetoric in many of the evangelical churches, who somehow see a threat to their particular theologies. It would seem that God is the author of nature, gave us the intellect to discover its secrets, and there should never be a conflict between scientific examination and understanding religious beliefs. We need to adapt to the more precise lenses of evidence as physical reality comes into focus.
If this means we accept the overwhelming evidence of geology records and DNA, etc, this is good, for it gives us a better understanding of how God has created all things, no matter the time it took, and by what methods it has been set in motion.

You would get no argument from me and I do not believe you would get an argument from the Catholic Church. This is a very Catholic position. Truth cannot conflict with truth. We must leave our preconceived notions behind and accept whatever that truth is.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

WELL SAID Servant! God is spirit. Which makes Jesus’ resurrection spiritual and not physical as Church leaders would have us believe! Jesus did not and does not need his physical body in Heaven. Church leaders chose to make it physical to enhance Christ’s divinity. Christ NEVER spoke of any physical resurrection. Christ in His very last words on earth, at the crucifixion, emphasized this principle once again: “And when nJesus had cried with a loud voice, he siad, Father, into thy hands I commend my SPIRIT…” His spirit, NOT his body. God has stated this truth through the words of Baha’u’llah.

With love & respect - ChristianBahai

Jesus conquered death, the final enemy. With your rejection of the physical or real ressurection (anastasis was only ever used during the time of Christ to describe a real ressurection), you have rejected Christianity and have favoured gnosticism. Who were the true CHristians to you 1800 years ago? The true Christians the quran says would suceed and be victorious? They must have been the gnostics.

Also Jesus spoke to his apostles after he was risen in the gospel of Luke while eating fish and explicitely saying “I am not a ghost.”

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you as we’ll Servant. Also the Baha’i faith teaches that science and religion should be aligned and not in conflict! God states through Baha’u’llah that any religius teaching that contradicts science is false. It’s that simple!

This is Catholic teaching, ChristianBahai.

In fact, it was Catholic scientists, under the patronage of the Catholic Church, who created the scientific method.

And, again, it was Catholics who started the university system.

You would not have your colleges and universities were it not for the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church has promoted it’s teachings that contradict science, and through the manifestation of Baha’u’llah he has stated their errors!

Can you cite a Catholic teaching that contradicts science?

(Please note, that for it to meet the definition of “contradict”, the Catholic teaching must say, “A” and science must say, “Not A”.)

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know PR…

You wrote you were not being disrespectful but

How are we endorsing polygamy in your mind by suggesting there can be a** spiritual bond **between a husband and wife that can last…?

A **spiritual bond **is different than what you stated originally.

You professed that the Baha’i faith says that marriage lasts to eternity.

That means that you are married for eternity.

A** spiritual bond** is not marriage. I can have a spiritual bond with my confessor, with my spiritual director, with my parishioners and fellow retreatants, but I am not married to them.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes, I think that while there have been in ancient times such matters as Galileo and Copernicus, much improvement has taken place.
I’m not sure where the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches stand on such things nowadays as the 6000 year history of the earth though. Would you know?
There is a lot of “anti-Darwin” rhetoric in many of the evangelical churches, who somehow see a threat to their particular theologies. It would seem that God is the author of nature, gave us the intellect to discover its secrets, and there should never be a conflict between scientific examination and understanding religious beliefs. We need to adapt to the more precise lenses of evidence as physical reality comes into focus.
If this means we accept the overwhelming evidence of geology records and DNA, etc, this is good, for it gives us a better understanding of how God has created all things, no matter the time it took, and by what methods it has been set in motion.

I noticed you ignored me on Galileo. Again what is this supposed to prove? The intellectuals of the time were more influenced by Aristotle and his Cosmology, he was very influential in the west when he didn’t outright contradict Christianity. If anything it was the relieance on old science, old greek science, not Christianity in of itself that made Galileo’s idea unpopular. Why are you going to take Galileo’s Side anyway?

That being said, science is not an ultimate arbitrator for reality. In attemptting to become modern and western, bahais have embraced a near total naturalism or view that the scientific is only worth believing in. I want you to demonstrate the scientific method true by the scientific method.

 

[daler]

The Church does not read the creation account in a linear fashion, such as one would read a science book. Indeed, we have a text in which light is made on the first day, but the sun, moon and stars were not made until the fourth day. There is another creation account in Psalm 104 wherein the earth is described as resting on its foundation, upheld by pillars.

Genesis was written in the genre of poetic prose and employs story telling techniques that are not familiar to the modern reader. It wasn’t meant to report scientific data. It is instead a profound theological meditation on God’s act of creation. The Church remains silent on the literal 6000 years. It accepts all truth that science may bring to light on this issue, which pretty much contradicts the 6000 year theory. We certainly know for certain that we are just now receiving light from stars millions of light years away. But the Church has not made any definitive statement in this regard. Infallibility doesn’t mean the Church knows everything. It means that it cannot err and so remains silent when it does not know.

You would get no argument from me and I do not believe you would get an argument from the Catholic Church. This is a very Catholic position. Truth cannot conflict with truth. We must leave our preconceived notions behind and accept whatever that truth is.

Steve, Thank you for the very good explanation. I appreciate it. It is hard talking with Fundamentalist Christians on these subjects because they tend to get either defensive or kind of aggressive and seem unable to set aside emotional responses to preconceived notions for objectivity necessary to intelligent discussion on modern scientific discoveries.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Steve, Thank you for the very good explanation. I appreciate it. It is hard talking with Fundamentalist Christians on these subjects because they tend to get either defensive or kind of aggressive and seem unable to set aside emotional responses to preconceived notions for objectivity necessary to intelligent discussion on modern scientific discoveries.

Can we call bahais liberal hacks that don’t actually believe or seek to define anything they believe? Who refuse utterly to answer objections that challange the very core of their faith? You have this simplistic world view that Christianity is nothing but a bunch of ignorant hicks yet I doubt your paying attention.

 

[Vouthon]

Steve, Thank you for the very good explanation. I appreciate it. It is hard talking with Fundamentalist Christians on these subjects because they tend to get either defensive or kind of aggressive and seem unable to set aside emotional responses to preconceived notions for objectivity necessary to intelligent discussion on modern scientific discoveries.

Dear Daler

I would also like to note that Catholics reading the creation accounts in Genesis metaphorically, is not a new method of exegetical interpretation.

Augustine, for example, interpreted Genesis non-literally as did Origen, writing:

“…For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally…”

- Origen (AD 225), The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1.16

 

[daler]

Dear Daler

I would also like to note that Catholics reading the creation accounts in Genesis metaphorically, is not a new method of exegetical interpretation.

Augustine, for example, interpreted Genesis non-literally as did Origen, writing:

That is very, very good. The symbolic use of speech and appreciation of the value of metaphorical language is both noble and visionary in what it encompasses, rather than confined and stagnant, as literalists too often fail to allow.
One could liken simple math symbols, such as 1, 2, = 3 to literal and precise limitations, which are then completely opened up to new horizons with algebraic equations, such as
A + B = C
We could not get to the moon using simple math, I’m afraid. Nor can we comprehend spiritual truths and penetrate divine mysteries with the restrictions imposed by purely literal interpretations.
Great vistas appear on the horizons of insight when the human capacity to seek “visions” is released, for our intellect alone processes mere symbols, while the heart comprehends great truths.
When we attempt to follow in the footsteps of the Prophets, They lead us on new paths of the soul, but only if we can keep up with Them. This is not a physical journey, confined to mere mortal dominions, but rather an elevation of our eternal self to the heights of spiritual abodes in the realm of being.

“The true seeker hunteth naught but the object of his quest, and the lover hath no desire save union with his beloved. Nor shall the seeker reach his goal unless he sacrifice all things. That is, whatever he hath seen, and heard, and understood, all must he set at naught, that he may enter the realm of the spirit, which is the City of God. Labor is needed, if we are to seek Him; ardor is needed, if we are to drink of the honey of reunion with Him; and if we taste of this cup, we shall cast away the world.”

from the “Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys” of Baha’u’llah

 

[ChristianBahai]

No disrespect taken. I speak only from what I have come to know, but I am no expert yet. I can tell you that polygamy is not supported in the Baha’i faith. The Baha’i faith supports the institution of mariage in the same way as the Christian faith does. A Baha’i weddubg works slightly different, but the concepts are the same.

With love & respect, ChristianBahai

So one has eternal unity with the spouse who has passed on, but may also be united with another spouse in this life?

I do not mean any disrespect, but does this not seem to be an argument for polygamy? Would not a Baha’i wishing to have 2 wives in this life be able to call this teaching up to support his view: but I am already eternally united to my wife who has passed on. And I am married to my second wife who is living. Why can’t I now be married to another woman?

Ah. Interesting.

 

[PRmerger]

No disrespect taken. I speak only from what I have come to know, but I am no expert yet. I can tell you that polygamy is not supported in the Baha’i faith. The Baha’i faith supports the institution of mariage in the same way as the Christian faith does. A Baha’i weddubg works slightly different, but the concepts are the same.

With love & respect, ChristianBahai

It appears that I have not been clear about this:

[SIGN1]I understand that the Baha’i faith does not teach polygamy.[/SIGN1]

My question, rather, is this: does it not seem inconsistent to say that one’s marriage is eternal, yet also believe that a widow/widower can re-marry?

How do you refute the argument that a Baha’i could say: “I wish to marry 2 women in this life, because you already believe that I am still married to my wife who has passed on, allowed me to marry again…and now I wish to marry a 3rd time.”

Please do not tell me, “The Baha’i faith does not believe in polygamy.”

I get that.

I want to know why it wouldn’t be allowed, if it permits a widow/widower to re-marry while also saying that his/her first marriage is still present in eternity?