Bahá'í

  • Thread starter Thread starter Adamski
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daler,

What do you believe regarding the resurrection of the body of Christ?
Porknpie,
Have you considered what Jesus Himself says about Heaven?

. “If I have told you earthly things, and you believe not, how shall you believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up…”

Let us consider this statement of its context and understand it as it relates to Jesus’ birth. His physical human body descended from the womb of Mary, not from a physical heaven, and thus His physical human body would not ascend to a physical heaven, even as He was physically present on earth when He made this statement.

We also have the story of Moses arguing with Pharaoh’s ministers. He threw down the staff of heavenly reason, which swallowed up the staff of evasive and false doctrine, faulty reasoning of Pharaoh’s ministers. The form of storytelling in the Middle East is such that since very ancient times, truths were told in such a fashion as to be hidden within, requiring the hearers to “think” and come to an understanding, searching out spiritual truths.

People outside of these cultures ascribe literal meaning only to these stories, and are thus deprived of the great spiritual message held within them. They go on repeating these stories, writing down these stories, and insisting upon the superficial explanations without ever considering how illogical and unreasonable they are. Fantasy prevails, and reason and logic suffer.

Entire theologies are built around advancing miraculous claims, misunderstanding all the while the true purpose of the coming of the Messiah, which is to lead souls into heavenly understanding, to uplift their characters, and build a divine civilization.

How opposed to reason and logic are those who cling to outward semblances and deny the faculty of the mind given to us by God.

Thus, we are left to submitting to supernatural explanations and their proponents, which require us to betray our own sensibilities. How contrary is this to the ways of the One True God, to bestow the capacity to reason upon us, and then withhold it from us.

We are told things since childhood to appease our imaginations until such time as we can discern with our own eyes the truth of reality, both physical and spiritual.

“Let them who have eyes see, and ears hear.”
 
Irrelevant.

It is the only way to have a One Flesh Union with God.
PR Please understand that I respect you, although may differ on some things. God has given us our own minds to investigate reality. Now please do not be offended when I offer this comparison. OK?

When I was a child, first learning to ride a bicycle, my father (who art on the back porch) put training wheels on it for me so that I could stay “on” the bicycle. Once I learned how to balance (reason), he removed the training wheels.

I believe that the Eucharist was necessary for the stage in which it was given. It was sort of like a visual aide, to help us digest the metaphor, as it were. You will disagree with me here. I understand that, accept that, and respect it of you.

If I were to withhold my own thoughts, although they be contrary to your own understanding, there would no longer be dialogue, but monologue. Which would you prefer? Again, I mean no disrespect.
 
Then show me, show me the true followers who would agree with bahai today in the second century, in the third, in the fourth. Anytime after Christ and before Muhammad. And of course we added words to our language of theology, any sane group that wants to clarify itself for others and for the people would do this. Bahai could learn a thing or two from this and the fathers i might add.
Ignatian, if you are here referring to the trinity, I’m afraid I am yet to see an authoritative explanation of what the Trinity actually means.

God, Father and Son are all used to mean one and different things at the same time. I talk to Mr.A the Catholic priest in Sydney, he says ABC, and when asked what some of the terms mean, I’m told to have faith, and then I talk to Mr.B the Catholic priest in Perth, and he says BCD, and when asked to explain what these things mean, he tells me to have faith and it is a mystery. Faith MUST go with reason. They are the twin pillars of true religion, I do not take things with blind faith…

Tell me these things:
  1. Who is God?
  2. Who is the Father?
  3. Who is the Son?
  4. What is the Godhead?
  5. What is the definition of substance?
  6. What is the definition of essence?
Then we can talk about who the Baha’is agreed with in the first, second and third centuries…
 
Yes. The word in the original Greek is “anamnesis”, which is more than just a “remembrance”. It refers to actually re-living the experience. It is more accurately translated, “Offer this as my memorial sacrifice”.

Just like when the Jews celebrate the Passover. It is more than merely remembering the event. It is a partaking of the same Passover that occurred millenia ago.
PR This is very good. I think that you have explained your understanding well.

When I grew up (in the Methodist Church), I remember always noticing the sign which said: “In Remembrance of Me”.

That always stuck with me. There is something to what you are saying, for what is most important is that we do partake of His Remembrance. That is the essential need that we all have, and to “go back in time”, as it were, to this state of timelessness in the eternal realm where He always dwells. For our mortal life will surely come to an end, but our souls, when we spend time “Remembering Him”, that time is not lost, and we will surely retain that.

What I think you may not be able to appreciate is that some of us feel that we no longer stand in need of what we regard as a ritualistic means, as valid as it is for some, to achieve this state of remembrance.

My friend Dr Klebel, who was a Priest, and is himself a scholar, told me about Julius Cesar (or one of them, not certain), being able to read without reading aloud. This was not something ordinary people could do at that time, much as children start out reading out loud, and that is all very natural.

The other part of his story is about the monks, who were separated some distance apart, so they could concentrate. Why? Because they also read out loud. They couldn’t read without reading out loud. It was a developmental stage. Study Piaget on early childhood development. We can’t skip the stages.

However, once we have absorbed the skill of one stage, we are then able to go onto the next stage. We no longer have to repeat the formalities, methods, or rituals of the preceding stage. This, too, is natural. It is how we progress.

This does not disrespect those who still need to read out loud, or utilize the Eucharist in the process of “Remembrance of Me”. For it is the Remembrance which is important, not the means to achieve it. What is most important is, as you say, re-living the experience… To experience that experience and to be One with Him.
 
Ignatian, if you are here referring to the trinity, I’m afraid I am yet to see an authoritative explanation of what the Trinity actually means.

God, Father and Son are all used to mean one and different things at the same time. I talk to Mr.A the Catholic priest in Sydney, he says ABC, and when asked what some of the terms mean, I’m told to have faith, and then I talk to Mr.B the Catholic priest in Perth, and he says BCD, and when asked to explain what these things mean, he tells me to have faith and it is a mystery. Faith MUST go with reason. They are the twin pillars of true religion, I do not take things with blind faith…

Tell me these things:
  1. Who is God?
  2. Who is the Father?
  3. Who is the Son?
  4. What is the Godhead?
  5. What is the definition of substance?
  6. What is the definition of essence?
Then we can talk about who the Baha’is agreed with in the first, second and third centuries…
Hi Ignatian.

I have just gone and read your dialogue with Sen McGlinn in this thread.

I notice you said the following (and I am quoting you):

“That which composes an existent being is not indicative of being material or physical. The fathers used the word Ousia in greek, the same fathers who described God not as material or physical but spirit and Christians have long since believed and said this. There is one divine essence which the three persons, the three individuals of the father and the son and the holy spirit share. Now if you do not comprehend this, it is because you do not want to accept our definitions of these words like substance or essence. Understanding that essence is not the same as personhood is essential if you want to have any chance of understanding the trinity and the church fathers went through great straights in order to give this definition that we have.”

And also in another post in that dialogue you said:

“No, in fact they did the opposite, they maintained the divinity of God declaring that God is absolutely above any such physicality. Rather what they did with the trinity is make a distinction between the divinity of God which had existed since all eternity and the humanity of Christ which was created. Christ was the word of God, eternal, the creator of all, the judge by which every knee would bow to and be worshipped by, but he was a man”

The more I read, the more I see that your explanation is in line with Bahai explanation of the trinitarian doctrine.

When you say that “that God is absolutely above any such physicality”, that is absolutely in line with Bahai theology.

When you say there is a “distinction between the divinity of God which had existed since all eternity and the humanity of Christ which was created”, that is absolutely in line with Bahai theology.

When you say “described God not as material or physical but spirit and Christians have long since believed and said this.”, this is absolutely in line with Bahai theology.

When you say “There is one divine essence which the three persons, the three individuals of the father and the son and the holy spirit share”, this is absolutely in line with Bahai theology.

The essence that all three Persons share is the LIGHT which is the essential attribute of the Sun, which is shed upon the human temple of Christ and animates Him with the essential attribute of the Sun (God)…this is the Bahai analogy summarized to a tee…

Where you say, “Understanding that essence is not the same as personhood is essential”, i say AMEN!!

Why all the fuss therefore?
 
PR Please understand that I respect you, although may differ on some things. God has given us our own minds to investigate reality. Now please do not be offended when I offer this comparison. OK?

When I was a child, first learning to ride a bicycle, my father (who art on the back porch) put training wheels on it for me so that I could stay “on” the bicycle. Once I learned how to balance (reason), he removed the training wheels.

I believe that the Eucharist was necessary for the stage in which it was given. It was sort of like a visual aide, to help us digest the metaphor, as it were. You will disagree with me here. I understand that, accept that, and respect it of you.

If I were to withhold my own thoughts, although they be contrary to your own understanding, there would no longer be dialogue, but monologue. Which would you prefer? Again, I mean no disrespect.
I understand that you mean no disrespect, daler.

And please understand that when I object to any positions being proffered here I, too, mean no disrespect.

Regarding your analogy: why would we not need the One Flesh Union anymore?

What you are saying is akin to saying: I am so close to my wife now, I do not need to enjoy the one flesh union with her.

(Please note: this is not to say that an elderly couple that cannot complete the marital embrace is not close. I am saying that you are proclaiming that a couple** does not need **to enjoy the marital embrace because they are above it, so to speak, in their intimacy. I find that situation dubious and more in line with an excuse to not engage in the marital embrace.)
 
What is most important is, as you say, re-living the experience… To experience that experience and to be One with Him.
And one cannot relive fully the experience without being One Flesh with Him.
 
I understand that you mean no disrespect, daler.

And please understand that when I object to any positions being proffered here I, too, mean no disrespect.

Regarding your analogy: why would we not need the One Flesh Union anymore?

What you are saying is akin to saying: I am so close to my wife now, I do not need to enjoy the one flesh union with her.

(Please note: this is not to say that an elderly couple that cannot complete the marital embrace is not close. I am saying that you are proclaiming that a couple** does not need **to enjoy the marital embrace because they are above it, so to speak, in their intimacy. I find that situation dubious and more in line with an excuse to not engage in the marital embrace.)
So is the love between my father and I of lesser potency because we have no marital embrace? Or would a flesh union be required for all forms of love?
 
So is the love between my father and I of lesser potency because we have no marital embrace? Or would a flesh union be required for all forms of love?
If you want to view the relationship you have with God as that of a father and son, I have no objection.

That is, of course, a Catholic view and a Scriptural view.

However, the Catholic (and Scriptural) view of our relationship with God is also NUPTIAL.

I find that to be sublime, profound and magnificent.

And, truly, superior to that between a father and child.

As such, we Catholics and Orthodox are able to become ONE FLESH with our Beloved.

How sad that you, who see your relationship with God as only that of a father and child, cannot enjoy this.

There is no greater intimacy than being ONE FLESH.

Would that you could enjoy this with your Beloved!
 
No need to feel sad for me PR, I enjoy my Last Supper with my Lord every 19 days during a Bahai Nineteen Day Feast. 🙂

Can you please elaborate on what you mean by a “nuptial relationship with God”?
 
No need to feel sad for me PR, I enjoy my Last Supper with my Lord every 19 days during a Bahai Nineteen Day Feast. 🙂
That’s like saying, “You don’t have to feel sad for me and my wife, PR. We enjoy a good meal together, even if we never enjoy the one flesh union.”
Can you please elaborate on what you mean by a “nuptial relationship with God”?
Have you ever read the book Song of Songs in the Bible?

Read it, and that should be the beginning of our discussion on what a nuptial relationship is.

usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Song%20of%20Songs&ch=

Afterwards, ask me a question that was prompted by reading it.
 
I think the Song of Songs is a good example of ancient eroto-spiritual allegory that has been around for centuries…We have allusions to it as well…

bahai-library.com/walbridge_erotic_allegory

scribd.com/doc/38646174/McGinn-Language-of-Mystical-Love-Poetry

😉
Interesting.

All truth is, of course, God’s truth.

It would appear that the Baha’i imagery borrows from the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

And, again, how is it that the Baha’i lover is able to enjoy the One Flesh Union with his Beloved?
 
Why all the fuss therefore?
Because its really “about the fuss”.

Some folks just need to get their fuss out.

So he comes here to fuss at the Baha’is.

Jesus said, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcomes will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”

. It is even as toddler needing attention more that the food offered, which he just spits out. No matter how sweet the food is, or how hungry the child, the need for attention is greater, and the need to be the center of attention greater still. So he comes here to fuss, and look at all the attention we give him and he still fusses for more…

. “I fuss, therefore, I am…” (important)
 
Interesting.

All truth is, of course, God’s truth.

It would appear that the Baha’i imagery borrows from the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

And, again, how is it that the Baha’i lover is able to enjoy the One Flesh Union with his Beloved?
PR God does not need to borrow from God. He “is” the Source. When similar water flows from the Source from time to time, that is natural.

This is from a Tablet addressed to a Sufi, called The Seven Valleys and the Four Valleys. It answers exactly, I believe, the question you are asking.

"O My Brother!
. A pure heart is as a mirror; cleanse it with the burnish of love and severance from all save God, that the true sun may shine within it and the eternal morning dawn. Then wilt thou clearly see the meaning of “Neither doth My earth nor My heaven contain Me, but the heart of My faithful servant containeth Me.” And thou wilt take up thy life in thine hand, and with infinite longing cast it before the new Beloved One.

. Whensoever the light of Manifestation of the King of Oneness settleth upon the throne of the heart and soul, His shining becometh visible in every limb and member. At that time the mystery of the famed tradition gleameth out of the darkness:

. “A servant is drawn unto Me in prayer until I answer him; and when I have answered him, I become the ear wherewith he heareth…” For thus the Master of the house hath appeared within His home, and all the pillars of the dwelling are ashine with His light. And the action and effect of the light are from the Light-Giver; so it is that all move through Him and arise by His will. And this is that spring whereof the near ones drink, as it is said:

“A fount whereof the near unto God shall drink…”

PR The whole of this book, which is not too long, is a story set in the context of a lover seeking his beloved. It is really about a soul who is seeking God, and the stages of that search.
It is one of the most endearing mystical books circulated among the Baha’is. You could read it in chapters, one at a time, and I believe that you will get a tremendous understanding out of it.
Maybe read the first two and get a feel for it, and go on from there.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SVFV/
 
Ignatian, I mean no disrespect but are you ok???

We were talking about sects of the Bahai Faith and your conclusion that the unity if the Bahai Faith is not perfect.

Why are you now talking about the perfections of the Manifestations.

Is everything ok dear friend?
Its because he keeps passing these counterfeit bills as real (the few phony, dead, supposed sects which have in reality purged the Faith of their bickering, self-serving, selves)

As long as he can keep running them past the check out scanner, somebody (he thinks) will look at them. For Baha’is, we don’t even need to hold them up to the light to see the water marks. We know they aren’t there. And the couple dozen or so die hard “followers” (passers of these counterfeit notes) left in the world are like the Wicked Witch of the West. The water of the Covenant has been poured upon them and they are withering, protesting their with their last breath: “I am melting… Argggghhhhhhh… !”

At only 1:57 seconds, it is well worth the watch and serves the purpose of the analogy very, very well…

youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So

“How a little girl like you could destroy my beautiful wickedness”
 
PR God does not need to borrow from God. He “is” the Source. When similar water flows from the Source from time to time, that is natural.
This is another way of saying what Catholics believe: all Truth is Catholic truth.
 
PR The whole of this book, which is not too long, is a story set in the context of a lover seeking his beloved. It is really about a soul who is seeking God, and the stages of that search.
It is one of the most endearing mystical books circulated among the Baha’is. You could read it in chapters, one at a time, and I believe that you will get a tremendous understanding out of it.
Maybe read the first two and get a feel for it, and go on from there.

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/SVFV/
I am heartened to see that the Baha’i faith does indeed see a nuptial relationship between God and His beloved.

But it is sad to me that the Baha’i faith has no way to enjoy a One Flesh Union with God.
 
This is another way of saying what Catholics believe: all Truth is Catholic truth.
PR It may be that when you, and others, use the term “Catholic” in this all encompassing way, that it does indeed define for you that “All Truth is Catholic”

However, dear friend, it comes across as automatically assuming that all truth is under the domain and control of the Catholic Church. “I own all truth because I am Catholic. Because I am Catholic, I own all truth.”

I studied Logic in college, but that was 40 years ago. This second point is a fallacy.
It is like saying: My car is a Chevy. Therefore, a car is a Chevy. All cars are, therefore, Chevys. If you have a car, it must be a Chevy. If you don’t have a Chevy, it isn’t a car.

PS I used to work for Chevrolet… 😉 ( “Honke” Chevrolet - I’m not kidding! 😉

For a list of fallacies: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top