Bahá'í

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
I can accept that the Baha’i faith does not officially support polygamy. However, as PRmerger has demonstrated, your theological principles allow one to end up in eternal marriage with more than one person which, by definition, is polygamy. Your theology does not support your stated moral stance on marriage. That is the issue.
 
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?
As it happens there is quite all lot of samples of Baha’i Art online…

images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-900&va=Baha%27i+Artists

We do not make any representations of the Manifestations of God and calligraphy is used a lot.

🙂
 
I misunderstood. Again we are speaking generally, but I don’t see the inconsistency in them because one is existent in the physical realm, and then you have the eternal part in the spiritual plane. A clipping that is somewhat relevant:

What is meant is that marriage should lead to a profound friendship of spirit, which will endure in the next world, where there is no sex, and no giving and taking in marriage; just the way we should establish with our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters and friends a deep spiritual bond which will be everlasting, and not merely physical bonds of human relationship.’ (On behalf of Shoghi Effendi: Lights of Guidance, p. 206)

"There is nothing against a person remarrying, the implication of unity in marriage being meant as a spiritual bond which will be everlasting, and not a sexual thing….

“It is suggested that Bahá’í marriage does not automatically ‘lead to a profound friendship of spirit, which will endure in the next world’. Further, it would appear that the possibility of such an enduring ‘friendship’ is not limited to the relationship between husband and wife. Rather, it is dependent on the nurturance and development of ‘a deep spiritual bond’, which transcends the ‘merely physical bonds of human relationship’ and is conditional on the establishment of ‘unity’ in the particular relationship.”

The Baha’i faith advocates ONE living spouse. As you study what is important to a Baha’i you’ll quickly see having multiple wives would never be considered. The bond with the first wife becomes an eternal, spiritual plane relationship, while the new bond with the second wife exists on the physical. Maybe this insight will help although it does not directly answer your question:

info.bahai.org/article-1-6-4-1.html

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?
 
Forgive me for saying so, but nothing has been demonstrated except your desire to paint an incorrect picture of the reality of the subject at hand. Are you saying that the terms (polygamy) of this earthly plane now apply in heaven and the spiritual realm? The theology speaks to having one wife at a time while living your physical lifetime. The eternal bonds in heaven are understood in spiritual terms and therefore your statement of polygamy is irrelevant as there would be no such concern in the spirit realm. Remember God is speaking in the writing of the Baha’i faith - not man’s version of opinion or doctrine. The spoken word of God for our age. Oh how many will come to know the truth in time. We should stop arguing doctrine and supposing we understand beliefs we have not taken any time to understand (from the source - not biased opinions of others with an agenda) and start listening to God.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai
I can accept that the Baha’i faith does not officially support polygamy. However, as PRmerger has demonstrated, your theological principles allow one to end up in eternal marriage with more than one person which, by definition, is polygamy. Your theology does not support your stated moral stance on marriage. That is the issue.
 
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.
Dearest PR, I have already clarified the purpose for referencing Galatians. One would question the purity of your motives with your post above

Purity is an essential SPURITUAL quality, more important than the PHYSICAL act of typing words to further your own agenda 😉

Please be nice.

I noticed, even the normally meek and humble arthra questioned your motives and fairness a few posts after this one. Please reflect on your divine image and act upon it PR 🙂
 
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?
The children’s drawing verses the masters drawing are exactly the same PHYSICAL ACT.

Pencil was put in hand, and pencil was placed on paper. The more experienced ability of the master to draw upon the creative spirit was the only difference between the two…the spirit! 🙂

It is the spirit that drew that beauty, there is no difference between the two PHYSICALLY…they both have hands, physically, no different, cells, ligaments, tendons, you know, physical things.

The spirit is the source of all creativity, the physical body is just a temporary vehicle to manifest the attributes of the spirit. When the body is shed, the light of the spirit is allowed to shine unimpeded and it can influence the creative forces of the universe…

So to conclude, the spirit is a much more powerful and important human aspect than the physical body.

The spirit belongs to God, and to Him it shall return, just as Jesus’ spirit did upon His crucifixion, and in which form it yielded its influence to bring about a Christian civilization which was the pride of the world at the time.

Jesus when He was raised was not a ghost, there is a difference between a ghost and a human spirit.

Are there any other references to the word “ghost” in the NT?
I find it interesting that Jesus said that he was not a ghost to His apostles and yet He uses the word “spirit” upon His crucifixion.

🙂
 
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?
Where did you offer ECF quotes on ontology PR?

Also, Aquinas in his Summa Theological rejects the ontological argument for explaining the nature of God

Philosophically, the ontological argument is irrational simply because it can be used to say that there is a flying teapot in space. Epistemology is all we can expect as humans to understand any mystery
 
I can accept that the Baha’i faith does not officially support polygamy. However, as PRmerger has demonstrated, your theological principles allow one to end up in eternal marriage with more than one person which, by definition, is polygamy. Your theology does not support your stated moral stance on marriage. That is the issue.
Steve, I have to wonder if there is a kind of over-idealization obsession here, although I do not mean to demean the intentions to better understand the concepts involved.

Marriage is much more than a physical union, and that is clearly described in the Baha’i Writings. As people age, the sexual aspect retreats, but the sweetest thing in the world is to see some elderly couple strolling hand in hand after 50 years with each other. They will stroll along in the next world, as well, and that is beautiful to consider.

The flip side of the ideal is the practical. Not so long ago half the infants died in childbirth and a lot of the women did too. Thank God for modern medicine, eh? But the reality of life includes death, and early death of a spouse, one or the other, does not mean that the natural continuation of procreation ceases upon the early departure of one or the other. It is not a sin to remarry, and whatever spiritual bonds are formed are not a competition of souls for affection in heaven.

This conversation needs to head in another direction, in my humble opinion. People can chew on some stuff forever (no offense intended), but aren’t there some other relevant concerns in people’s minds?

… “The world is in travail, and its agitation waxeth day by day. Its face is turned towards waywardness and unbelief. Such shall be its plight, that to disclose it now would not be meet and seemly. Its perversity will long continue. And when the appointed hour is come, there shall suddenly appear that which shall cause the limbs of mankind to quake. Then, and only then, will the Divine Standard be unfurled, and the Nightingale of Paradise warble its melody.”

Baha’u’lah
 
I misunderstood. Again we are speaking generally, but I don’t see the inconsistency in them because one is existent in the physical realm, and then you have the eternal part in the spiritual plane. A clipping that is somewhat relevant:

What is meant is that marriage should lead to a profound friendship of spirit, which will endure in the next world, where there is no sex, and no giving and taking in marriage; just the way we should establish with our parents, our children, our brothers and sisters and friends a deep spiritual bond which will be everlasting, and not merely physical bonds of human relationship.’ (On behalf of Shoghi Effendi: Lights of Guidance, p. 206)

"There is nothing against a person remarrying, the implication of unity in marriage being meant as a spiritual bond which will be everlasting, and not a sexual thing….

“It is suggested that Bahá’í marriage does not automatically ‘lead to a profound friendship of spirit, which will endure in the next world’. Further, it would appear that the possibility of such an enduring ‘friendship’ is not limited to the relationship between husband and wife. Rather, it is dependent on the nurturance and development of ‘a deep spiritual bond’, which transcends the ‘merely physical bonds of human relationship’ and is conditional on the establishment of ‘unity’ in the particular relationship.”

The Baha’i faith advocates ONE living spouse. As you study what is important to a Baha’i you’ll quickly see having multiple wives would never be considered. The bond with the first wife becomes an eternal, spiritual plane relationship, while the new bond with the second wife exists on the physical. Maybe this insight will help although it does not directly answer your question:

info.bahai.org/article-1-6-4-1.html

With love & respect - ChristianBahai
Ah, I understand a bit better now.

So when one’s spouse passes on, the marriage does** not** exist for eternity. There is simply a bond that perseveres in the spiritual realm.

But the marriage is no longer.

Thus the widow/widower is free to re-marry.

That makes more sense, and seems to be consistent.
 
Dearest PR, I have already clarified the purpose for referencing Galatians.
Yes. You quoted it as a reference to the physical aspect of the marital (you used the term "lover’s) embrace. You indicated that the physical aspect was sinful.

I think that is a horrible way to view the marital embrace.
Purity is an essential SPURITUAL quality, more important than the PHYSICAL act of typing words to further your own agenda 😉
I have no idea what this means. :confused:
Please be nice.
I noticed, even the normally meek and humble arthra questioned your motives and fairness a few posts after this one. Please reflect on your divine image and act upon it PR 🙂
Right back at 'cha, Servant.

I am as nice as the poster to whom I am responding is.
 
The children’s drawing verses the masters drawing are exactly the same PHYSICAL ACT.

Pencil was put in hand, and pencil was placed on paper. The more experienced ability of the master to draw upon the creative spirit was the only difference between the two…the spirit! 🙂
NO.

The do-er is changed.

This occurs at the moment of sacramental union between the man and woman.
 
The spirit is the source of all creativity, the physical body is just a temporary vehicle to manifest the attributes of the spirit. When the body is shed, the light of the spirit is allowed to shine unimpeded and it can influence the creative forces of the universe…
No. The above is Gnosticism. It is erroneous, and twisted.

The body is HOLY, BEAUTIFUL and an outward manifestation of our souls.
 
Also, Aquinas in his Summa Theological rejects the ontological argument for explaining the nature of God

Philosophically, the ontological argument is irrational simply because it can be used to say that there is a flying teapot in space. Epistemology is all we can expect as humans to understand any mystery
Quotes please.

And do not change your original premise. You said that St. Thomas posited “To say something has changed ontologically is manifest falsehood.”

I’d like to see where you read that. 🍿
 
NO.

The do-er is changed.

This occurs at the moment of sacramental union between the man and woman.
Not that I can understand here at all.

The master is a DIFFERENT person from the student PHYSICALLY
I AM NOT a different person, PHYSICALLY the moment I entered into wedlock.

Please clarify…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top