Bahá'í

[daler]

And here’s an example of a scholar supporting Aquinas’ use of ontology to describe the sacraments bold mine):

The same God who made bread and wine from nothing and sustains them in existence from moment to moment, can transform the deepest** ontological **centers of those things into something else.

Then how do we explain the perdurance of the accidents, once their proper substances have been changed? Once again, **Thomas **invokes the divine power. Though God customarily sustains accidents through their proper substances, he can, for his own purposes, suspend the secondary causality and sustain them directly himself. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) said that, at the Eucharistic change, the bread and wine lose their independence as creatures and become, through God’s power, pure signs of Christ’s presence. They no longer point to themselves in any relevant sense, for they have become utterly transparent to the Christ who makes himself manifest through them.
payingattentiontothesky.com/2011/03/25/the-eucharistic-theology-of-thomas-aquinas-%E2%80%93-fr-robert-barron/

PR If I may jump in for a bit here. My sense of the Eucharist is that it is a symbol which works on another part of our mind, which is a means by which our soul can comprehend in a non-intellectual way, accepting the Divine Presence of the Manifestation of God in His absence.
Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” It is the “remembrance” of Him which causes the change in us. The Eucharist is a means to that end. It is the “belief” within us which is the door of Faith by which we enter His presence, and sup with Him, and He with us.

I would also offer that the changing of the water into wine has a spiritual spiritual meaning, that when He blessed the water, it was like the woman at the well, to whom He said, “Drink of this water (of My words) and ye shall thirst no more.”

The insistence of “miracles” at the time, and even till today, restricts many from the comprehension of the power of the Holy Spirit. It isn’t a bunch of magic tricks that Jesus pulled off, pulling bunnies out of hats and so forth, but the power of His words and having faith in Him that delivered people from the sin of remoteness from God.

 

[Servant19]

True, that.

But that is completely different than what you proposed originally: “To say something has changed ontologically is manifest falsehood.”

Aquinas is arguing that we cannot use the ontological argument to understand God completely.

You argued that nothing can be ontologically changed, and that this was supported by Aquinas.

Of course things are changed ontologically! That is exactly what occurs during the sacraments, and if you believe Aquinas did not believe in ontological change you are arguing nonsense.

Ok.

Indeed, I do.

The change occurs ontologically. Not physically.

What a peculiar thing to say!

You may not understand the essence of anything, but I certainly do.

And therein lies the concerns PR.

Have you possibly considered the perspective that “everything” that a human being can ever understand is epistemological, not ontological.

Science is epistemological. It advances and progresses, with the caveat that no-one is ever 100% certian

Ontology is founded on ABSOLUTE knowledge. No human being has absolute knowledge on ANYTHING.

For centuries science has tried to discover and understand the phenomena in the natural, material world. Science, even today, with the tremendous advances it is undergoing cannot ever dare to claim absolute knowledge on anything. For centuries, scientists have tried to study the human body, more and more intricately. Yet it still is humble enough to say that it doesn’t really know how to prevent the common cold…

Epistemology reflects humility
Claims of ontology on a human plane with the limited ability for the human being to grasp an infinite plethora of knowledge, is nothing short of arrogance in the face of God.

So here we are, science accepts that it has not yet uncovered the truth of most things in the material natural world.

On the other hand, PR, you are claiming absolute knowledge on a “supernatural” phenomenon known as the marriage sacrament. When you say that you fully understand the ESSENCE of marriage, you are saying that you are able to explain EXACTLY what happens to a married couple upon death. And sorry, no-one can do that…

It’s almost as if you are claiming to be God Himself.

I would say that with all the wonderful advances Catholics have contributed to science, these individuals would never dare to make absolutist comments like knowing what is the essence of anything…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Basically servant 19 what you saying is that only the natural can be believed in one hundred percent. Basically what your saying is that the existence of God cannot be believed in one hundred percent.

 

[Servant19]

No Ignatian, what I am saying is that the very nature of anything supernatural implies that it is beyond the graspability (is that a word? lol) of human beings in this limited world and in our current limited, and natural condition.

This is EXACTLY why we as human beings have faith, isn’t it? We BELEIVE something for this very reason, because it is a mystery. However, when explanation of the mystery goes AGAINST established reality, then we may need to think again about our beliefs…

Epistemology implies that we are capable of grasping and understanding something rationally.
Ontology implies that no matter how hard we try we cannot understand something, not in our physical human frame anyway…

That’s my humble understanding anyway.

 

[Servant19]

So Mirza Hussain is not your prophet? Interesting, do bahais have their Nestorian idea? Of Mirza and the Baha’u’llah? That Baha’u’llah descended into the physical body of Mirza but just happened to inhabit it? Seriously I am asking that.

I deny your claim that I ever worshipped your prophet. For your prophet is a false prophet and Jesus rose into heaven with a Physical body and would come again in the same fashion. Jesus also has another body, that body is his church and it is his church I belong to, nothing more, nothing less.

Now what you are describing to me is an idea of incarnation of a specific person throuhgout all ages. There are not multiple manifestations it seems with their own individuality, their own person. Jesus cannot speak to mirza Hussain because he in of himself is Mirza hussain simply by another name. Many bahai have seemed to deny this idea, that is of incarnations, calling them instead manifestations. But It does make some interpretations odd for you. So when Jesus was promising the comforter, he should have really said “I must go so that I should return later when you are all dead. ciao.” After all since Jesus and Mirza Hussain are the same, he must be the comforter who had to leave for some reason only to come back agian with a completely different message.

And its interesting you say its the only religion not to have schismatics, I could have sworn there were some early schisms, small but still schisms nontheless. Or do they not count? Becuase the orthodox Bahai are uncomorfortable therefore they are to be ignored? Or that Mirza’s hussain’s claim wasn;'t immediately accepted by all? All this being said the JW seem unaffected by a widescale schism so maybe they are right. This isn’t a good criteria for anything.

Time is not on my side for all the questions Ignatian, my apologies.

There is a quote in the original language of Revelation from the Bab, which has not been translated yet where He says that (and I paraphrase)…

“…before I chose the womb of My mother, I discoursed with Muhammad about the future of Islam”

The eternal Logos manifests itself from age to age in different human Temples…

…personally, again, I find this awe-inspiring

Also, you can call the “orthodox Baha’is” a “schism” but to all religious scholars, it is nothing of the sort at all…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So the Orthodox Bahai are in open communion? There were no groups that rejected Mirza Hussain? You really want to claim that? You know that would be dishonest.

Now you are a contradicting yourself, you said at first that Jesus was Mirza Hussain and by Mirza Hussain I mean the same person you call “baha’u’llah.” Which is it? Are the manifestations incarnations of the same entity or different entities of the same sort of substance?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No Ignatian, what I am saying is that the very nature of anything supernatural implies that it is beyond the graspability (is that a word? lol) of human beings in this limited world and in our current limited, and natural condition.

This is EXACTLY why we as human beings have faith, isn’t it? We BELEIVE something for this very reason, because it is a mystery. However, when explanation of the mystery goes AGAINST established reality, then we may need to think again about our beliefs…

Epistemology implies that we are capable of grasping and understanding something rationally.
Ontology implies that no matter how hard we try we cannot understand something, not in our physical human frame anyway…

That’s my humble understanding anyway.

So we should not believe in virgin births.

 

[Servant19]

You kind of contradicted yourself, either you describe him or you don’t. Either he has attributes which can be known to us mortal creatures or he doesn’t. Negative theology has its place but even those who use it will describe God in the end otherwise you have a problem of a God so far removed from reality that nothing about him can be conceived, nothing at all is relatable. He is like an alien that you cannot understand no matter how hard you try basically.

Attributes of God are not the same as the “essence” of God.

As a painter, I express my attributes onto the painting. But is the painting ME? No I am far, far removed from the painting. No matter how hard the paint tries, it will NEVER be able to describe me, it doesn’t even know I exist.

Human beings have the benefit of grasping the reality that God does exist by the simple fact that He has provided us with His Manifestations in order that we may know of Him and strive to be with Him…if He allows it

“I entreat Thee by Thy footsteps in this wilderness, and by the words “Here am I. Here am I” which Thy chosen Ones have uttered in this immensity, and by the breaths of Thy Revelation, and the gentle winds of the Dawn of thy Manifestation, to ordain that I may gaze on Thy beauty and observe whatsoever is in Thy Book.” - Long Obligatory Prayer (Baha’u’llah)

(emphasis added by me)

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Attributes of God are not the same as the “essence” of God.

As a painter, I express my attributes onto the painting. But is the painting ME? No I am far, far removed from the painting. No matter how hard the paint tries, it will NEVER be able to describe me, it doesn’t even know I exist.

Human beings have the benefit of grasping the reality that God does exist by the simple fact that He has provided us with His Manifestations in order that we may know of Him and strive to be with Him…if He allows it

“I entreat Thee by Thy footsteps in this wilderness, and by the words “Here am I. Here am I” which Thy chosen Ones have uttered in this immensity, and by the breaths of Thy Revelation, and the gentle winds of the Dawn of thy Manifestation, to ordain that I may gaze on Thy beauty and observe whatsoever is in Thy Book.” - Long Obligatory Prayer (Baha’u’llah)

(emphasis added by me)

A painting actually has the image of the person however, we can grasp their essence their body within it. That being said you did contradict yourself and now your trying to avoid that contradiction by adding Essence vs attributes.

 

[Servant19]

So we should not believe in virgin births.

As I have said before, Divine Revelation provides ontology, and it is up to us to believe in it or not.

Baha’i ontology specifies that miracles CAN happen, yet they do not turn into a daily magic show, simple.

This, to me reflects reality perfectly. We don’t see virgin births every day. It was a one off occurence, a miracle.

Another miracle is survival of the Bab after being shot by 750 muskets, doesn’t happen every day.

What are you getting at Ignatian?

 

[Servant19]

A painting actually has the image of the person however, we can grasp their essence their body within it. That being said you did contradict yourself and now your trying to avoid that contradiction by adding Essence vs attributes.

…then we have a definition misunderstanding…

the image of the person is its attributes, it is not the person itself…

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

As I have said before, Divine Revelation provides ontology, and it is up to us to believe in it or not.

Baha’i ontology specifies that miracles CAN happen, yet they do not turn into a daily magic show, simple.

This, to me reflects reality perfectly. We don’t see virgin births every day. It was a one off occurence, a miracle.

Another miracle is survival of the Bab after being shot by 750 muskets, doesn’t happen every day.

What are you getting at Ignatian?

No a virgin birth conflicts with the given reality. People are not born of virgins, they are born of the semen and the egg via sexual intercourse. Your relying not on anything ontological in your bahai revelation, your relying on a faith and nothing more.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

…then we have a definition misunderstanding…

the image of the person is its attributes, it is not the person itself…

I never said that, we can conceive of the essence of the person through the image. We can percieve how that person would be and look like.

 

[Servant19]

I never said that, we can conceive of the essence of the person through the image. We can percieve how that person would be and look like.

So you know how Da Vinci looked like by looking at the Mona Lisa? How?

More importantly, the paint on the painting knows how Da Vinci looks, just by looking at the other paint molecules on the canvas? How?

 

[Servant19]

No a virgin birth conflicts with the given reality. People are not born of virgins, they are born of the semen and the egg via sexual intercourse. Your relying not on anything ontological in your bahai revelation, your relying on a faith and nothing more.

My friend, reality is reality, I take it on face value…

Again, what point are you trying to prove?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

My friend, reality is reality, I take it on face value…

Again, what point are you trying to prove?

Except when it comes to spiritual or sacramental reality. You have a problem with us believing that things can be sanctified, believing in the utmost that water can be holy that a man can be Born from a virgin totally. Yes people believe in these things absolutely over time if they continue to grow in Christianity as have all the saints. You say this is a bad thing, that we can only know the natural world, or science more so.

Basically im contending against what you are saying, that Jesus himself is evidence of a sacramental reality of things, be it marriage or be it is body and blood.

 

[Servant19]

Except when it comes to spiritual or sacramental reality. You have a problem with us believing that things can be sanctified, believing in the utmost that water can be holy that a man can be Born from a virgin totally. Yes people believe in these things absolutely over time if they continue to grow in Christianity as have all the saints. You say this is a bad thing, that we can only know the natural world, or science more so.

Basically im contending against what you are saying, that Jesus himself is evidence of a sacramental reality of things, be it marriage or be it is body and blood.

Outside of literalism and symbolism, is there anything else?

Either something is literally, physically, testably (testable by a scientist) real, OR

It is symbolic, or a physical representation of a supernatural, spiritual reality…
(a bit like my, now passed away, fathers necklace is a physical memory/representative of his life)

Is there any other form of reality?

 

[PRmerger]

And therein lies the concerns PR.

Have you possibly considered the perspective that “everything” that a human being can ever understand is epistemological, not ontological.

There is no reason to create a dichotomy.

The Catholic both/and can be applied here quite easily, Servant.

Science is epistemological. It advances and progresses, with the caveat that no-one is ever 100% certian

Are you 100% certain about the fact that no one is ever 100% certain?

Ontology is founded on ABSOLUTE knowledge. No human being has absolute knowledge on ANYTHING.

True.

But it appears that your conclusion, which is that ontological arguments are therefore false, is not a correct conclusion.

For centuries science has tried to discover and understand the phenomena in the natural, material world. Science, even today, with the tremendous advances it is undergoing cannot ever dare to** claim absolute knowledge on anything**. For centuries, scientists have tried to study the human body, more and more intricately. Yet it still is humble enough to say that it doesn’t really know how to prevent the common cold…

Are you operating under the misapprehension that someone here has claimed absolute knowledge on anything?

Epistemology reflects humility

Ok.

Claims of ontology on a human plane with the limited ability for the human being to grasp an infinite plethora of knowledge, is nothing short of arrogance in the face of God.

It would be if anyone here said, “I use ontological arguments to now have absolute knowledge of God!”

Have you seen anyone here say that, Servant?

It appears that you are creating a weird straw man here.

So here we are, science accepts that it has not yet uncovered the truth of most things in the material natural world.

Sure. As has theology.

On the other hand, PR, you are claiming absolute knowledge on a “supernatural” phenomenon known as the marriage sacrament.

Nope. I never said that. I said I understood its essence.

When you say that you fully understand the ESSENCE of marriage, you are saying that you are able to explain EXACTLY what happens to a married couple upon death.

Nope.

It’s almost as if you are claiming to be God Himself.

I would say that with all the wonderful advances Catholics have contributed to science, these individuals would never dare to make absolutist comments like knowing what is the essence of anything…

That’s too bad that you can’t say you know the essence of marriage. Perhaps when you have been married a few more years, and have read the sublime works of great theologians such as Pope JPII, as well as studied the Word of God, you will be able to state that you understand its essence.

 

[PRmerger]

PR If I may jump in for a bit here. My sense of the Eucharist is that it is a symbol which works on another part of our mind, which is a means by which our soul can comprehend in a non-intellectual way, accepting the Divine Presence of the Manifestation of God in His absence.

Sure. It is just not ONLY a symbol.

Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of Me.” It is the “remembrance” of Him which causes the change in us. The Eucharist is a means to that end. It is the “belief” within us which is the door of Faith by which we enter His presence, and sup with Him, and He with us.

If your wife said that you no longer needed the marital embrace because the belief of commitment and love between the two of you was enough, what would you say?

I would also offer that the changing of the water into wine has a spiritual spiritual meaning, that when He blessed the water, it was like the woman at the well, to whom He said, “Drink of this water (of My words) and ye shall thirst no more.”

Sure. I don’t have a problem with that.

The insistence of “miracles” at the time, and even till today, restricts many from the comprehension of the power of the Holy Spirit.

This doesn’t make sense. Miracles do the opposite of restricting us from the comprehension of the power of the Holy Spirit. They manifest the power of the Holy Spirt.

It isn’t a bunch of magic tricks that Jesus pulled off, pulling bunnies out of hats and so forth, but the power of His words and having faith in Him that delivered people from the sin of remoteness from God.

This is very Catholic!

 

[SteveVH]

The Baha’i teachings are evry much tending towards a “process-driven” approach towards salvation. This naturally reflects very much the reality of life as we empirically observe.
The twin pillars of reward and punishment lie in the hands of God and God alone. When we align our lives more closely towards the Will of God as outlined by the teachings and utterances of His Manifestation, then naturally the rewards are reaped

I have no intention of misconstruing your words so please correct me if I am wrong here. Does this mean that you believe that our salvation is a consequence of our own actions independent of the saving grace of Jesus Christ? In other words, do you believe we save ourselves by the way we live?

Thanks.