Bahá'í

[Servant19]

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.

I am not your priest PR

God has given you the capacity to read for yourself and investigate the truth.

To be honest, I read this document a long time ago, and I do recall Aquinas having problems with making any ontological claims, but I have no time right now to go and do something you can do for yourself

I may be wrong in my memory, but in all reality making claims if ontological change to anything is the same as Scientology warmed up…who could even hold a discussion on any ontological reality.

Ontologically Jesus is Bahaullah. Prove me wrong…

 

[Servant19]

No. The above is Gnosticism. It is erroneous, and twisted.

The body is HOLY, BEAUTIFUL and an outward manifestation of our souls.

Yes it is a beautiful part of creation. The concept that the spirit is the ontological (there i can enjoy that word too it seems) essence of what it means to be human, as opposed to the physical body, is put on the canvas for you to look at.

Lets explore that

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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.

Baha’u’lah

The institution of marriage exists while in this life only, there is a spiritual element to it but it is by no means eternal and marraige ends at death. Jesus says as much when he says we won’t be married in the ressurection or in death. So integral to marriage at least from a historic Christian view is to bare and raise children which ultimately involves sex.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ontologically Jesus is Bahaullah. Prove me wrong…

Are you asserting the person 2000 years ago was Mirza Hussain? That Mirza Hussain every so often is reborn into different bodies, like the hindu incarnation of Krishna? This is utterly wrong and contradicted the gospel. Jesus has his own body, it was eating fish after God rose that body and it ascended into heaven and there is no such trace of that body. Plus bahai have said to me the Manifestations are not hte same person but rather they all have this Christ consciousness. Are you actually saying it was Mirza Hussain who died for your sins? That Mirza Hussain is the only mediator? Was it Mirza HUssain who was muhammad who said to fight the infidel? Clarify.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Yes it is a beautiful part of creation. The concept that the spirit is the ontological (there i can enjoy that word too it seems) essence of what it means to be human, as opposed to the physical body, is put on the canvas for you to look at.

Lets explore that

This is not the Christian view, it is very much against what scripture and the church has taught since the begining. Man is a composite of spirit and flesh, we are not one or the other. I might ask why didn’t God merely create us as spirits? Spirits after all are capable of sin, look at satan (although you reject he existence of angels). What is the point of God giving us this corrupt body? Bahai do not believe in the fall (despite believing in the immaculate conception which is predicated on the fall) so God has put us in these bodies from the begining, these corrupt bodies, these bodies which die, this world that kills and offers suffering, to what end? This will be the case for all eternity within the bahai faith, at least until the sun destroys this world and I suppose God will create an alien race to send his manifestations too because he doesn’t like miracles except in only two circumstances (creating a virgin birth and creating people).

 

[Servant19]

Are you asserting the person 2000 years ago was Mirza Hussain? That Mirza Hussain every so often is reborn into different bodies, like the hindu incarnation of Krishna? This is utterly wrong and contradicted the gospel. Jesus has his own body, it was eating fish after God rose that body and it ascended into heaven and there is no such trace of that body. Plus bahai have said to me the Manifestations are not hte same person but rather they all have this Christ consciousness. Are you actually saying it was Mirza Hussain who died for your sins? That Mirza Hussain is the only mediator? Was it Mirza HUssain who was muhammad who said to fight the infidel? Clarify.

No Ignatio, Mirza Hussain was none of those, but Baha’u’llah WAS that Person you worship who was physically embodied into Jesus of Nazareth…

Bahaullah WAS manifested in the body of Abraham, Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.

Bahaullah DID die for my sins 2000 years ago, His name was Jesus then, His name is renewed for this Age.

Bahaullah IS the ONLY mediator. He is represented in many bodies over time, and He speaks the Word of God, and each time He comes with a new name, and He gives a Message suited to the Will of God for the people’s He wishes to address…SO…

…Yes…He was also Muhamnad and was asked by God to fight the infidels who worshipped idols and NOT the one true God

Bahaullah was all of those…Mirza Husayn was just a lowly man who chose to walk away from a life of nobility so that He could be Bahaullah and suffer a lifetime of torture and imprisonment for the coming of the Kingdom of God on earth, and the unification of the human race.

Ever wondered why the Bahai Faith is the only religion in history that has not suffered schismic division? The Kingdom of God is being built, we can argue over polygamy and marriage all you like, but the building will never stop until its done.

I’m honored to be a lowly servant offering a brick or two in the building process the likes if which mortal eyes have never witnessed

 

[Servant19]

This is not the Christian view, it is very much against what scripture and the church has taught since the begining. Man is a composite of spirit and flesh, we are not one or the other. I might ask why didn’t God merely create us as spirits? Spirits after all are capable of sin, look at satan (although you reject he existence of angels). What is the point of God giving us this corrupt body? Bahai do not believe in the fall (despite believing in the immaculate conception which is predicated on the fall) so God has put us in these bodies from the begining, these corrupt bodies, these bodies which die, this world that kills and offers suffering, to what end? This will be the case for all eternity within the bahai faith, at least until the sun destroys this world and I suppose God will create an alien race to send his manifestations too because he doesn’t like miracles except in only two circumstances (creating a virgin birth and creating people).

This reminds me of the fetus in the womb saying that it is all body, umbilical cord and placenta…until one day it realized that it was not reality in there at all…the womb was but a dream…

 

[Servant19]

Ignatian, I can’t help but realize that you have never sat down and read a single Bahai book from cover to cover, have you?

You interchange spirit with angels with ghosts with souls. What are the differences between these?

I think this thread truly suffers from a miscommunication of two religions having different meanings for the same word.

Maybe we should spend some time defining some things.

What is the nature of the human being?
Do you agree we have a physical aspect as well as a spiritual aspect?
What is the spiritual aspect?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I believe i understand enough as to bahai, but I have read some bahai materials, specifically the ones by your prophets addressed to Christians. I find them lacking because they don’t often understand Christianity and an eternal being (never having been created or died) as you believe Mirza Hussain to be should be able to get Christianity right. He should not be subject to mistakes so if I find but one mistake in him I really cannot trust bahai claims about him. For instance the immaculate conception is apparently to be believed by bahai, but I have every doubt that they don’t actually understand the doctrine, that it refers to mary being born without the stain of original sin, another doctrine which bahai reject in any form. We are not born sinful, nor was there ever a time when were not in this state that we are in now to bahai. Immaculate conception presupposes either of these which is why im baffled as to how an eternal entity on equal level to God (and really there is no real way to distinguish between God and Mirza Hussain or any manifestation in bahai) could get it so wrong. Unless that was his kid saying it, then he’s still wrong but I don’t think bahai can accept that.

Also why do bahai fail to recognise that history is entirely against them, especially in regaurds to Christianity? The quran tells you the Christians would be victorious to the day of ressurection (which apparently hadn’t happened yet to Muhammad, I guess he should have been told it happened with Jesus and there is no such thing as a day of ressurection in which the righteous and unrighteous dead will be raised to be judged), and who was victorious we must ask. Was it not the Orthodox/Catholic party? Lets also include oriental Christians as well, they hardly agree with bahai. The parties that most agreed with bahai (gnostics and arrians and Eunomians) had either died out or become so minimal their presence was barely felt among the Christians of the day whom were Catholic/Orhtodox/Oriental.

That being said, the distinction between angels and men becomes meaningless if we assert that our actual being is spiritual. We would essentially be angels just inhabiting a human body, but man was created with spirit and flesh, God breathed into his creation, he made man in his image. He deemed it proper that this was Good, that we at one point or another were good, not perfect yet but good and to grow to God. Man or humanity is spirit and the body, this is the Christian point of view not the socratic view of bahai and gnostics.

 

[SteveVH]

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.

No, that is not my desire. And yes, I forgive you for saying so.

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.

Not taking the time to understand is one possibility. The other is that it was not explained correctly. When one speaks of the bonds of marriage extending into eternity the logical conclusion is that when one has more than one bond of marriage extending into eternity then one is speaking of polygamy, whether in this world or the next.

As Catholics, we believe that we will have an even greater intimacy with our spouses then we enjoyed on earth, but it is not at all in the context of marriage because the bonds of marriage no longer exist. We believe in “till death do us part”. In fact, we will have this intimacy with all of our loved ones and, in fact, with all of those in heaven. If this is the relationship of which you speak then we have no argument.

 

[SteveVH]

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 think it is more a matter of miscommunication than a conflict of ideas. Of course, we have no problem with more than one marriage on this earth when one has lost a spouse. We have no conflict because the first marriage ends upon death and does not extend into eternity, therefore one is free to marry again. The problem was in either stating or implying that the bonds of marriage extend into eternity. That causes a problem. If one is simply speaking of an eternal spiritual intimacy (which we believe we will have with everyone in heaven) then that is another subject altogether and one with which it appears that we agree.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not your priest PR

God has given you the capacity to read for yourself and investigate the truth.

To be honest, I read this document a long time ago, and I do recall Aquinas having problems with making any ontological claims, but I have no time right now to go and do something you can do for yourself

I may be wrong in my memory, but in all reality making claims if ontological change to anything is the same as Scientology warmed up…who could even hold a discussion on any ontological reality.

Ontologically Jesus is Bahaullah. Prove me wrong…

It appears that you just made this information up then.

Did you not say this earlier?

I also urge you to read the works of Thomas Aquinas who argued the extreme limitations of anything to be true “ontologically”

To say something has changed ontologically is manifest falsehood, even according to St. Thomas…go figure

And then when you said this:

I will look this up for you ASAP

you tried to do a google search and couldn’t find a whit of evidence to back up what you had just made up.

 

[Servant19]

As Catholics, we believe that we will have an even greater intimacy with our spouses then we enjoyed on earth, but it is not at all in the context of marriage because the bonds of marriage no longer exist. We believe in “till death do us part”. In fact, we will have this intimacy with all of our loved ones and, in fact, with all of those in heaven. If this is the relationship of which you speak then we have no argument.

What you posted here Steve is beautiful and aligns greatly with Baha’i teaching.

The reality is that Baha’u’llah teaches that we will interact with our loved ones (all of them) in the next world after death, and that intimacy, joy, love and light is significantly more potent than what we experience on our earthly plane of existence. In fact the power of the soul is described below:

The nature of the soul after death can never be described, nor is it meet and permissible to reveal its whole character to the eyes of men. The Prophets and Messengers of God have been sent down for the sole purpose underlying their revelation hath been to educate all men, that they may, at the hour of death, ascend, in the utmost purity and sanctity and with absolute detachment, to the throne of the Most High. The light which these souls radiate is responsible for the progress of the world and the advancement of its peoples. They are like unto leaven which leaveneth the world of being, and constitute the animating force through which the arts and wonders of the world are made manifest. Through them the clouds rain their bounty upon men, and the earth bringeth forth its fruits. All things must needs have a cause, a motive power, an animating principle. These souls and symbols of detachment have provided, and will continue to provide, the supreme moving impulse in the world of being. The world beyond is as different from this world as this world is different from that of the child while still in the womb of its mother.—Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 155–157.

This clearly states that there is an increased potency in the powers of the human being AFTER death when the human soul can walk and align itself with the Will of God with less impediments.

I would say, Steve, that the unions one experiences in this spiritual realm is very much “all-encompassing” however the union with our spouse is a unique one in this spiritual realm.

This is my understanding and I do feel that it doesn’t really contradict Catholic teachings on the subject, but reaffirms it and adds upon it, namely magnifies and intensifies the union of our marriage partners after death.

If God can fulfil the law of Moses through Jesus, then He surely can clarify the true meaning of marital union.

 

[PRmerger]

Where is your source that “ontology” = “substance”?

If one googles “ontology” and “substance” we come up with

“about 1,970,000 results (0.16 seconds)”

google.com/search?q=ontology+substancd+defintion&oq=ontology+substancd+defintion&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0.9907j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=ontology+substance+definition&spell=1&sa=X&ei=UZnmUcGROsHXyAGSjYCYAw&ved=0CCsQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49405654%2Cd.aWc%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.QXiTEk6XjhM.O&fp=2a397225d5c65770&biw=1366&bih=667

IOW: Over a million references.

And I took the first hit and copied the first sentence:
“Substance is a key concept in ontology”

And here’s something from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy (bold and font increase mine)

1. Ontological dependence, substance, and properties

A crucial notion in metaphysics is that of one entity depending for its existence upon another entity—not in a merely causal sense, but in a deeper, ontological sense. The kind of dependence in question must also be distinguished from any kind of logical dependence, because logical relations, strictly speaking, can obtain only between propositions, not between concrete objects, nor between abstract objects that are not propositional in nature. Thus, a substance is often conceived to be an object that does not depend for its existence upon anything else. (For example, Descartes asserts that ‘by substance we can understand nothing other than a thing which exists in such a way as to depend on no other thing for its existence’ (Writings, vol. I, p. 210).) Again, properties are often said to depend for their existence upon the objects that possess them. (Thus, Descartes also remarks that ‘we know by the natural light that a real attribute cannot belong to nothing’ (Writings, vol. II, p. 114).) So how should this relationship of existential dependence be defined? An obvious proposal would be to say, quite simply:

(EDR) x dependsR for its existence upon y =df Necessarily, x exists only if y exists.

 

[Servant19]

It appears that you just made this information up then.

Did you not say this earlier?

And then when you said this:

you tried to do a google search and couldn’t find a whit of evidence to back up what you had just made up.

No PR I did not make it up. I am a university graduate, I feel my education stretches a tiny touch beyond “googling”

As I said to you, and I will repeat this again, my memory is slightly hazy, but if you look at Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, he rejects the ontological argument for the existence of God.

Have you read Summa Theologica PR?

Please try to refrain from uncharitably posting ideas that you are trying to push onto me. I clearly stated that I may be MISTAKEN, you clearly tried to push that I was trying to google something AFTER the fact, which implies that I am lying.

Please…I am not treating you the same way. I quote you clearly, not misquote you and imply sin upon your person. Thankyou

 

[Servant19]

If one googles “ontology” and “substance” we come up with

“about 1,970,000 results (0.16 seconds)”

google.com/search?q=ontology+substancd+defintion&oq=ontology+substancd+defintion&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0.9907j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=ontology+substance+definition&spell=1&sa=X&ei=UZnmUcGROsHXyAGSjYCYAw&ved=0CCsQvwUoAA&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.49405654%2Cd.aWc%2Cpv.xjs.s.en_US.QXiTEk6XjhM.O&fp=2a397225d5c65770&biw=1366&bih=667

IOW: Over a million references.

And I took the first hit and copied the first sentence:
“Substance is a key concept in ontology”

And here’s something from the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy (bold and font increase mine)

1. Ontological dependence, substance, and properties

A crucial notion in metaphysics is that of one entity depending for its existence upon another entity—not in a merely causal sense, but in a deeper, ontological sense. The kind of dependence in question must also be distinguished from any kind of logical dependence, because logical relations, strictly speaking, can obtain only between propositions, not between concrete objects, nor between abstract objects that are not propositional in nature. Thus, a substance is often conceived to be an object that does not depend for its existence upon anything else. (For example, Descartes asserts that ‘by substance we can understand nothing other than a thing which exists in such a way as to depend on no other thing for its existence’ (Writings, vol. I, p. 210).) Again, properties are often said to depend for their existence upon the objects that possess them. (Thus, Descartes also remarks that ‘we know by the natural light that a real attribute cannot belong to nothing’ (Writings, vol. II, p. 114).) So how should this relationship of existential dependence be defined? An obvious proposal would be to say, quite simply:

(EDR) x dependsR for its existence upon y =df Necessarily, x exists only if y exists.

When one searches for the meaning of a word, most people would use a dictionary, not google

Shpw me a dictionary definition of ontology please that says that ontology EQUALS substance

 

[PRmerger]

When one searches for the meaning of a word, most people would use a dictionary, not google

Perhaps you missed where I cited a dictionary?

And not just any dictionary, but the Stanford Dictionary of PHILOSOPHY.

 

[PRmerger]

No PR I did not make it up.

Sure you did.

Otherwise you would have posted the citation days ago, when I first asked it.

I have asked for your reference at least 3 times now, and if you had one you would have provided it.

My default position is to never doubt the sincerity of another’s posts, until he cannot back up his claim.

Then the logical conclusion is that it was a bluff or bluster or bravado.

 

[Servant19]

Perhaps you missed where I cited a dictionary?

And not just any dictionary, but the Stanford Dictionary of PHILOSOPHY.

Haha, I must admit I missed that

Can you provide a link to what you quoted please. Thanks

Please also note, when I capitalize certain words in my posts, I am not shouting, just emphasizing specific words

My intention is loving discussion and thrashing out of concepts…

 

[Servant19]

Sure you did.

Otherwise you would have posted the citation days ago, when I first asked it.

I have asked for your reference at least 3 times now, and if you had one you would have provided it.

My default position is to never doubt the sincerity of another’s posts, until he cannot back up his claim.

Then the logical conclusion is that it was a bluff or bluster or bravado.

Pretty harsh

I tend to go the other way. Mistakes can be made, but I still stand that I may not have been mistaken…I tend to trust others more

There are many books I’ve read years ago where certain concepts stick in my mind, yet I can’t just get up and find the page straight away.

You must be supremely intelligent, can you quote from a book you read 10 years ago?