Questions for the Baha'i – from a primarily Christian perspective.

[RJM]

Let's say we want to understand if Baha'u'llah is on the same level of consciousness as Jesus or Muhammad.

Are you talking about the Jesus of the Quran who was 'just a messenger' or the Jesus of the Gospels, who was more than that?

 

[Ahanu]

Are you talking about the Jesus of the Quran who was 'just a messenger' or the Jesus of the Gospels, who was more than that?

The Jesus of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John? Of Paul? Of James? Of the Ebionites?

 

[RJM]

I also happen to think that you have to be a target before you become an object of demonic interest. It's a case of return on (demonic) investment. Possessing Joe Bloggs won't advance the cause, as it were. Breaking a saint has a more reverberative effect.

I've thought about this. The difference between Nelson Mandela who emerged from 27 years imprisonment to become a voice for peace, and another who becomes bitter and vengeful. My thought was that the more powerful and influential a person becomes, the more he becomes useful to 'the adversary' and the stronger he needs to be as he gains power not to become corrupted by it?

 

[RJM]

The Jesus of Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John? Of Paul? Of James? Of the Ebionites?

So -- the Jesus who was 'just a messenger' -- the Jesus you are talking about?

I mean, to clarify the terms of reference ...

 

[Thomas]

With regard to logismoi and demons, the former are ideas ...

I'ver not gone into it in any depth, but I'd suggest they belong to two categories – logismoi to the psychic order, ie mental states, and demons to the spiritual order. In which case demons will marshal logismoi to pave the way for harm.

Today medicine deals with the physical, and we are developing treatments for the psychic, which might well be themselves physical, such as drug therapies. Hopefully we've moved away from electro-shock therapy and lobotomy.

Conversely, an exorcism might well have been used where no actual demonic presence exists, but the effect is curative with regard to the psychic wellbeing of the patient. Conversely again, psychic disorders might be the result not so much of demonic possession as demonic influence or suggestion – so here again a demon could to a significant degree achieve his aim without the need of possession or apparition or what have you, just the continual drip-feed of negative thoughts and less than charitable modes of thinking.

+++

The whole field is, AFAIK, not of much interest in the contemporary world. When discussing spirits, for example, we think of angels and demons as the heavy hitters, the Michaels and Gabriels, and their fallen counterparts ... but of course there are hierarchical orders, and below the angelic or spiritual powers we have nature spirits, and then the world of fairies, etc.

If one accepts the idea of a Chain of Being, then there's no imperative to dismiss the possibility of a hierarchy of non-material beings, some possessed with a greater or lesser degree of intelligence, and so on for consciousness ...

+++

While the modern world largely dismisses the Ancient or Native worlds as naive, simple and backward, we might have done bettwe had the American settlers paid more attention to the advice of First Nation / American Aboriginal / Native American peoples with regard to living in harmony with nature and the environment.

+++

If one believe in God, it's not too great a step to believe the idea of 'life' extends further that the limits of sentient beings – that we live on a living planet, for example. Such may be superstitious, romantic or naive, or all three, but it could equally be a darn sight healthier, physically, mentally and spiritually, than the world we have conjured ourselves at present – or living as we are, slaves to invisible and anonymous 'powers and principalities' that occupy the seven heavens between us and our Creator.

 

[Ahanu]

So -- the Jesus who was 'just a messenger' -- the Jesus you are talking about?

I mean, to clarify the terms of reference ...

The following early stream of Christianity matches my view of Jesus' station the most:

"For the True Prophet Himself also from the beginning of the world, through the course of time, hastens to rest. For He is present with us at all times; and if at any time it is necessary, He appears and corrects us, that He may bring to eternal life those who follow Him” (Pseudo-Clementines as quoted by Decipher).

So, no, not God in the Catholic sense.

 

[Thomas]

The following early stream of Christianity matches my view of Jesus' station the most:

Interesting ... I'll have to look into this ...

 

[RJM]

So, no, not God in the Catholic sense.

Ah, well no I didn't actually say that. But (the living) Jesus Christ who heals and forgives sin, is regarded as more than just a prophet or messenger even by Christians who don't accept the Trinity formula. Even Islam accepts a miracle worker and sinless Jesus of virgin birth who was taken up alive to heaven. It's not really true that Jesus is regarded by Muslims as the 'equal' of Muhammad (pbuh)?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Let's say we want to understand if Baha'u'llah is on the same level of consciousness as Jesus or Muhammad.

Did any one of the three give any evidence for God or themselves being the messengers of God? Made up stories.

 

[Ahanu]

With regard to logismoi and demons, the former are ideas ...

I'ver not gone into it in any depth, but I'd suggest they belong to two categories – logismoi to the psychic order, ie mental states, and demons to the spiritual order. In which case demons will marshal logismoi to pave the way for harm.

That sure is a blurry line you have there between negative thoughts and external demonic influence. There's the rub: the separation between the two categories/actors is unnecessary. There's no in-depth explanation of human logismoi and how demons interact with them in what you have presented.

I might have a fleeting thought of anger. How do I discern between a negative thought arising from my own psyche and one planted there by a demon?

Today medicine deals with the physical, and we are developing treatments for the psychic, which might well be themselves physical, such as drug therapies. Hopefully we've moved away from electro-shock therapy and lobotomy.

Today medicine deals with the physical and the mental. For example, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) helps individuals identify and overcome unhelpful thought patterns. It would fall under the umbrella of modern medicine, and it addresses the mental health side of things alongside medication.

Conversely, an exorcism might well have been used where no actual demonic presence exists, but the effect is curative with regard to the psychic wellbeing of the patient.

Again, you're highlighting the blurry lines between demonic influence and our own negative mental processes. In my opinion, it would be better to simply consider the former a symbol of the latter and be done with the arbitrary lines drawn to separate the two.

Conversely again, psychic disorders might be the result not so much of demonic possession as demonic influence or suggestion – so here again a demon could to a significant degree achieve his aim without the need of possession or apparition or what have you, just the continual drip-feed of negative thoughts and less than charitable modes of thinking.

Epilepsy is a psychic disorder. Jesus commands the demon to come out, implying possession (Mark 9.25). The phrase "come out of him" suggests a physical presence within the person. Influence or suggestion wouldn't be something that needs to be "cast out" in this way. The phrase "enter him" implies the demon inhabited the person. Are you suggesting there is not a literal meaning of "come out" or "enter him" here? Does God want us to marry these 2000-year-old expressions or what? How do you differentiate between influence and possession? By degree of intensity?

My answer to this is clear: we should not mistake the expression for reality or wed the expression. It is simply an expression for contemporaries at the time to understand it. This is similar with epilepsy. It is described in the first century so differently from how we explain it today that we can barely recognize both expressions describe the same thing.

The whole field is, AFAIK, not of much interest in the contemporary world. When discussing spirits, for example, we think of angels and demons as the heavy hitters, the Michaels and Gabriels, and their fallen counterparts ... but of course there are hierarchical orders, and below the angelic or spiritual powers we have nature spirits, and then the world of fairies, etc.

If one accepts the idea of a Chain of Being, then there's no imperative to dismiss the possibility of a hierarchy of non-material beings, some possessed with a greater or lesser degree of intelligence, and so on for consciousness ...

I can accept a hierarchy of non-material beings, but, from how I understand the matter, the difference is in how we conceptualize said non-material beings (indwelling versus connection) and how they act. As the Baha'i scholar Abu'l-Fadl defines spirit, it is the following:

an abstract substance separate from matter in essence but not in act

Here's the context according to Juan Cole's translation:

QUESTION: He asked (may God preserve him) about the meaning of the angels' argument with God concerning His appointment of Adam as His vicegerent on earth.[*]
* Qur'an 2:30: "And when thy Lord said to the angels, `I am setting upon the earth a viceroy.' They said, `What, wilt Thou set therein one who will do corruption there, and shed blood, while we proclaim Thy praise and called Thee Holy?' He said, `Assuredly I know what you know not'" See also Qur'an 38:71-88].

ANSWER: May God confirm both of us by His spirit and bestow His mercy upon us. Know, my erudite friend, that this matter is intimately connected with the question of knowing that there are pure spirits and celestial souls, and understanding that these are essentially sanctified above matter and that they require matter in order to act.

First it must be recognized that philosophers and researchers in the scholarly community have defined "spirit" in different ways. The best, most perfect, and clearest of these is that spirit is an abstract substance separate from matter in essence but not in act. It will not be hidden from the wise that this definition, insofar as it is a definition by negation, fails to elucidate the reality of the essence of one thing described. It is a comprehensive, restrictive definition which, nonetheless, better explains the intent of the word "spirit" than other definitions. It can be known from this definition, for instance, that spirit is different from matter and material things to regard to its essence. Spirit cannot be described by such attributes as ingress and egress, independence and inherence, advance and retreat, movement and stillness. Eyes cannot perceive it, nor can the other senses. Yet it remains in need of matter in all acts, and inseparable from it in all conditions, for it is unimaginable that matter be stripped from it.

No act can issue from spirit except through matter, and it is inconceivable that an effect could be produced by spirit save through the instrumentality of matter. For instance, it is impossible to imagine that the acts of seeing, hearing, writing, or thinking could proceed from spirit alone, except through the instrumentality of the eye, the ear, the hand, the brain, and so on. In this respect there is no difference between holy celestial spirits, rational human spirits, perceptive animal spirits, or base satanic spirits. These are all terms and expressions referring to actions, attributes, and properties rather than to the common abstract nature of their essence and their need for matter in order to act.

Many have remained heedless of this point, and ancients and moderns have both wandered astray in this desert. To this the holy verses have referred: "And had we made him an angel, we would have made him [in the form of] a man, and we would have thus confused them concerning the very thing about which they are sowing confusion."[Qur'an 6:9] Those lost in the wasteland of delusion, heedless of the true meaning of that which the All-Possessing, the All-Knowing had promised, saw in the heavenly scriptures (particularly the Holy Gospel) that the Lord Messenger (or the Lord who would descend) would come with a company of favored angels and a host of the Concourse on High, and that he would be rendered victorious by a multitude of swooping angels and those riding behind.[1.7] But when the noble messenger Muhammad appeared — may the blessings and peace of God be upon him and upon his House — they saw a simple man who ate food, strolled in the market, kept company with other Arabs, and sat upon the ground. There were neither angels hovering over his head nor hosts of those imagined spirits walking before and behind him. They criticized Muhammad for failing to fulfill the Revelation because he did not meet an unreasonable condition. They clamored, shouted, elaborated, and expatiated at length. "And they said, `What is wrong with this messenger, that he eats food and walks in the markets? Why has an angel not been sent down to him, to be a warner with him?'"[1.8] The previously cited verse was revealed to reproach and to silence these people, to refute their proofs, and to rebut their fancies. It informed them that there is no effulgence of the spirit save in the form of a human being and that angels only descend in such a form.

To put it more clearly, pure substance can only have an effect through the instrumentality of bodies. An angel who descends is nothing other than a human being. What is the meaning of human being? He is the supreme talisman; the most noble substance; the form created for unchallenged dominion of all the world; the perfect, distinguished reality; the first revealed sign; the essence receptive of all forms, high and low.

All these names and attributes refer to the human being, and all else is fancy, dream, illusion, and imagination.

How often have philosophers attempted to establish that there exists an absolutely pure intellect separate from matter both in essence and in act! However, the steed of their argument has stumbled on their evidence, the blade of their investigation has failed to strike home, and the standard of their proof has been hauled down. They spoke with great bombast and verbosity, but in the end produced nothing. How could it be otherwise?"

While the modern world largely dismisses the Ancient or Native worlds as naive, simple and backward, we might have done bettwe had the American settlers paid more attention to the advice of First Nation / American Aboriginal / Native American peoples with regard to living in harmony with nature and the environment.

Pollution at some level has always issued from human beings - no matter which culture or time period we look at. For example, Steven Pinker, who we briefly discussed in a previous thread, writes: "According to paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, the adoption of wet rice cultivation in Asia some five thousand years ago may have released so much methane into the atmosphere from rotting vegetation as to have changed the climate. 'A good case can be made,' he suggests, that 'the people in the Iron Age and even the late Stone Age had a much greater per-capita impact on the earth's landscape than the average modern-day person.'"

Also, before this he writes that "when people use energy to create a zone of structure in their bodies and homes, they must increase entropy elsewhere in the environment in the form of waste, pollution, and other forms of disorder. The human species has always been ingenious at doing this . . . and it has never lived in harmony with the environment. When native peoples first set foot in an ecosystem, they typically hunted large animals to extinction, and often burned and cleared vast swaths of forest."

Perhaps a new thread called the myth of the ancients living in harmony with nature?

 

[Thomas]

That sure is a blurry line you have there between negative thoughts and external demonic influence.

That's because not all negative thoughts are necessarily the product of external demonic influence – Demons play to one's weaknesses, not one's strengths.

There's the rub: the separation between the two categories/actors is unnecessary.

Man can explain the world without recourse to God, or the spiritual domain ... doesn't mean that God is therefore unnecessary.

There's no in-depth explanation of human logismoi and how demons interact with them in what you have presented.

You'd have to look elsewhere for in-depth commentary.

I might have a fleeting thought of anger. How do I discern between a negative thought arising from my own psyche and one planted there by a demon?

Self-examination.

Again, you're highlighting the blurry lines between demonic influence and our own negative mental processes. In my opinion, it would be better to simply consider the former a symbol of the latter and be done with the arbitrary lines drawn to separate the two.

OK. I think it better, while embracing all that modern medicine has to offer, I don't see that as a necessary or valid reason not to consider the idea of God and spiritual hierarchies.

Epilepsy is a psychic disorder. Jesus commands the demon to come out, implying possession (Mark 9.25). The phrase "come out of him" suggests a physical presence within the person. Influence or suggestion wouldn't be something that needs to be "cast out" in this way. The phrase "enter him" implies the demon inhabited the person. Are you suggesting there is not a literal meaning of "come out" or "enter him" here? Does God want us to marry these 2000-year-old expressions or what? How do you differentiate between influence and possession? By degree of intensity?

the degree to which one loses one's autonomy.

Epilepsy is a disorder, a 'short-circuit' in the neural processes. Not all epileptics see visions, or have accompanying mystical experiences. Some mystics, however, seem to display symptoms akin to epilepsy ... do we say then, unequivocally, that such states are the products of the epilepsy itself, or is there a possibility that a certain order of 'experience' triggers an episode?

My answer to this is clear:

OK. Mine differs. I see no reason to assume yours is conclusive, any more than I expect you to assume mine.

Pollution at some level has always issued from human beings - no matter which culture or time period we look at.

Quite. It's how we manage it that counts.

"According to paleoclimatologist William Ruddiman, the adoption of wet rice cultivation in Asia some five thousand years ago may have released so much methane into the atmosphere from rotting vegetation as to have changed the climate. 'A good case can be made,' he suggests, that 'the people in the Iron Age and even the late Stone Age had a much greater per-capita impact on the earth's landscape than the average modern-day person.'"
Perhaps ... but they didn't bring the ecosystem to the point of collapse, did they, and they weren't aware of what they were doing. So as much as we might condemn, at least they can claim they didn't know, where we do.

Perhaps a new thread called the myth of the ancients living in harmony with nature?

Are you suggesting that the Native American, for example, who reverenced the buffalo they hunted, and had an ethos of paying back, is a 'myth'? That they are/were no better than we are today?

 

[Thomas]

I can accept a hierarchy of non-material beings, but, from how I understand the matter, the difference is in how we conceptualize said non-material beings (indwelling versus connection) and how they act. As the Baha'i scholar Abu'l-Fadl defines spirit, it is the following:
"an abstract substance separate from matter in essence but not in act"

Does he though?

Here's the context according to Juan Cole's translation:

(I've highlighted the translation in colour)

The best, most perfect, and clearest of these is that spirit is an abstract substance separate from matter in essence but not in act...
But he goes on to say that definition fails:
... this definition, insofar as it is a definition by negation, fails to elucidate the reality of the essence of one thing described.

Spirit cannot be described by such attributes as ingress and egress, independence and inherence, advance and retreat, movement and stillness.
But in Scripture, Spirit is perceived to ascend and descend, is spoken of as moving, even at the very start of Creation, 'the Spirit of God moved over the waters' (Genesis 1:2) ...

Eyes cannot perceive it, nor can the other senses.
The spiritual senses can, else we would not know of the spirit, or indeed, the Holy Spirit?

Yet it remains in need of matter in all acts, and inseparable from it in all conditions, for it is unimaginable that matter be stripped from it.
To act in the world, yes, but according to themselves, no, spirits are not material beings.

No act can issue from spirit except through matter, and it is inconceivable that an effect could be produced by spirit save through the instrumentality of matter.
Well clearly spirits can produce effects in humans, and negotiably animals ... they can inform, influence, etc.

For instance, it is impossible to imagine that the acts of seeing, hearing, writing, or thinking could proceed from spirit alone, except through the instrumentality of the eye, the ear, the hand, the brain, and so on.
No, that's an anthropomorphism. Some have seen angels, some have dialogued with angels – did not Mary, did not Muhammad (pbuh)?

In this respect there is no difference between holy celestial spirits, rational human spirits, perceptive animal spirits, or base satanic spirits. These are all terms and expressions referring to actions, attributes, and properties rather than to the common abstract nature of their essence and their need for matter in order to act.
I'm not sure I understand this. 'actions attributes and properties' are predicated of something, they don't exist in a void?
Properties differ according to the nature of the being, although I can see spirit is common to all spirits, but that does not necessarily mean all spirits are the same spirit.
"Abstract' again ... I find that term renders understanding uncertain.

I find the quote from the Quran vague. Suffice to say the Quran affirms the existence of angels (and djinns).

The previously cited verse was revealed to reproach and to silence these people, to refute their proofs, and to rebut their fancies. It informed them that there is no effulgence of the spirit save in the form of a human being and that angels only descend in such a form.
No, I think in context the understanding is different. I read the text to say that God could have, if He so chose, but chose not to, to give man the opportunity to repent:
"They say, “Why has no ˹visible˺ angel come with him?” Had We sent down an angel, the matter would have certainly been settled ˹at once˺, and they would have never been given more time ˹to repent˺." (Surah 6:8)

Rather, All these names and attributes refer to the human being, and all else is fancy, dream, illusion, and imagination.

Well as that's contrary to everything the Abrahamic Traditions teach – I simply reject it.

A human being did not 'move over the waters' (Genesis 1:2) A human being did not announce to Mary she would bear a child, (Luke 1:31), a human being, nor was Gabriel in the Quran a human being.

How often have philosophers attempted to establish that there exists an absolutely pure intellect separate from matter both in essence and in act! However, the steed of their argument has stumbled on their evidence, the blade of their investigation has failed to strike home, and the standard of their proof has been hauled down. They spoke with great bombast and verbosity, but in the end produced nothing. How could it be otherwise?"
Try Aquinas' discourse on angels, Summa Theologae, First Part, Q50-64. You don't have to believe it, but in the light of Scripture it's more coherent than this.