The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

Did it? We still believe in Gods, ghosts, prophets, sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis.

What do you mean by we? You don't. You said it yourself: "My thoughts and beliefs are in step with science and evidence."

OK, I was thinking more in lines of the wisdom/insights of the First Nation peoples in the US and their advice to the white man, or their incomprehension at his actions.

Okay. Why do you think the white man during that time acted the way he did?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Or like how you repurpose Genesis 2.7 to your own ends, ignoring that "In Judaism, there was originally little to no concept of a soul," and "as seen in the Genesis, the divine breath simply animated bodies?"

Yeah, Judaism and Bahaism are different religions. Bahaism is different from Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam too. Then, why do Bahais take Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as manifestations of Allah (not talking about inclusion of Hinduism and Buddhism in the list and being forgetful about Shinto, Daoism and Confucianism). Wholesale Plagiarism.

 

[Ahanu]

Yeah, Judaism and Bahaism are different religions. Bahaism is different from Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam too.

Then, why do Bahais take Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad as manifestations of Allah (not talking about inclusion of Hinduism and Buddhism in the list and being forgetful about Shinto, Daoism and Confucianism). Wholesale Plagiarism.

Of course they are going to be different. I think humanity's development in the first century Jewish world corresponds to the mythic stage of development. Anything that evolves or develops is going to evolve or develop into something different while retaining some similarities with what existed earlier.

Different times, different geographical locations, and, most importantly, different places of human development. This latter concept isn't really a feature in ancient Abrahamic religions. The world was static from their perspective. Hence eschatological thinking painted pictures of the end of the world, and the genesis of the world was thought to have occurred at a specific point in time about 6,000 years ago from their perspective.

Consider the development of children. If you pin a multi-colored beach ball - or any multi-colored ball for that matter - in front of a three-year-old, show him your side, show him his side, and ask: “Hey, what color do you see, George? Red? Good! What color do I see?” George will say red even though you are looking at blue and showed him that you were facing that color earlier. Toddlers can’t yet understand your perspective until they reach a later stage of development. They are highly egocentric. Once the child ages past seven years of age, he can then consider your perspective, and he can know it is also true that you see blue. But does this mean the three-year-old child is not the seven-year-old child? No, they are the same, but the intrinsic perspective has developed over time. The same can be said about the development of religions if we look at broad swaths of history and liken it to human development. One million years from now who will hold @Thomas' views about religion or my views about religion? If the past is any indication (e.g., cave art), then nobody will.

 

[Thomas]

I personally see there is no conflict and my current understanding is that we can not know the Essence of the Holy Spirit, we can only know it by the Names and Attributes, let alone the Essence of God, which Baha'u'llah offers even the Messengers do not know.

OK, to be clear, the question is not one of the nature of the Holy Spirit but the assertion that "it is in no wise possible for the Holy Spirit to ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" which is soundly refuted by Hebrew/Christian/Muslim Scripture and Tradition.

The Christina distinction of the Holy Spirit as a Person is unique to Christianity and not accepted by Judaism or Islam – however, that question is supplementary to the overall point. Similarly, can we know God in His essence or only in His activities is another question discussed /disputed within the Christian Tradition.

This is a snippet of the explanation given by Abdul'baha

OK ... snippet in blue:

"... For otherwise ingress and egress, descent and inherence are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits
[/QUOTE]
Well the Hebrew, Christian and Muslim Scriptures disagree, and speak in terms of spiritual ascent and descent ... prophecy, for example, is inspired from above, and the prophet utters not with their own voice, as it were, but are the words of the Divine upon the human tongue.

that is, ingress and inherence pertain only to sensible realities, not to intelligible subtleties
I'd rather say, 'as above, so below'.

and intelligible realities, such as reason, love, knowledge, imagination, and thought, do not enter, exit, or inhere, but rather denote relationships.
There's a categorical error here, as we're talking about the Holy Spirit, not about the operation of human faculties. (I'd say the statement is nevertheless wrong, as ideas can enter one's consciousness from 'outside'.)

Suffice to say that Scripture and Traditions (the Abrahamic, as well as Hindu and others) refute this – indeed, Prophecy and Revelation is a knowledge of matters given by the divine and are not the product of the human intellect alone – Scripture and Revelation are intrinsically a descent of the Word into the world.

For example, knowledge, which is a form acquired by the mind, is an intelligible thing, and to speak of entering into the mind or exiting from it is absurd. Rather, it is a relationship of acquisition, even as images are reflected in a mirror.
This seems wrong on a number of points:
1: The discussion is about the Holy Spirit of God, not about the exchange of human knowledge.
2: Knowledge entering the mind is precisely what education and experience is. The mind adds its own narrative, but knowledge can be shared and imparted, passed on, etc... to call it absurd is somewhat silly, as the very words of the Baha'u'llal are imparting ideas from him to you ... and you give them a home.
3: Mirrors reflect, they do not acquire. They are not intrinsically changed in the process. A mirror learns nothing from reflecting the light. Mirrors do not acquire the light, nor the essence or qualities of light.

Thus, as it is evident and established that intelligible realities do not enter or inhere,
Well correct me where I'm wrong, but I think this is an error of assumption.

it follows that it is in no wise possible for the Holy Spirit to ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere. At most it appears as the sun appears in a mirror.
Again, a categorical error arrived at by comparing unalike things.

If all we can do is mirror, it means we have not essentially changed at all in body, mind or spirit ... we become an empty parody of the Divine.

 

[Thomas]

Just listen to Rabbi Tovia Singer for a clear example:

Well that's an opinion, and if you look round youtube you'll find plenty of content from Jews and Christians that refute him.

... you repurpose Genesis 2.7 to your own ends, ignoring that in Judaism, there was originally little to no concept of a soul," and "as seen in the Genesis, the divine breath simply animated bodies[/I][/URL]?"

And yet the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole can be read as a dialogue between creature and Creator?

If there is no meeting between the two, then there is no Revelation and no Scripture as such.

 

[Ahanu]

not about the operation of human faculties. (I'd say the statement is nevertheless wrong, as ideas can enter one's consciousness from 'outside'.)

Abdu'l-Baha's statement is a general principle about the nature of intelligible realities. It's not specifically limited to human faculties. The application of this principle to the Holy Spirit is a logical extension of this metaphysical framework. The Baha'i view is not denying the experience of receiving ideas from outside, but rather the nature of those ideas. The idea itself is still an intelligible reality, a relationship or quality, not a physical entity that enters the mind (as if it were a tangible cat or dog entering a house). "Entering" is a metaphor for the process of acquiring knowledge, not a literal description of the movement of a physical object.

Intelligible realities are non-physical and exist in a realm beyond space and time. They are qualities or relationships rather than substances. Love, justice, or beauty are intelligible realities. They describe qualities or relationships between things, but they are not things themselves. The Holy Spirit is similar in nature to intelligible realities. Its influence is not through physical presence but through spiritual connection.

 

[Ahanu]

Suffice to say that Scripture and Traditions (the Abrahamic, as well as Hindu and others) refute this – indeed, Prophecy and Revelation is a knowledge of matters given by the divine and are not the product of the human intellect alone – Scripture and Revelation are intrinsically a descent of the Word into the world.

@Thomas, we do not deny the concept of divine revelation. However, the Baha'i Faith differentiates between a spiritual descent and a physical one.

Even if we accept the idea of a divine descent, the content of that revelation—the spiritual knowledge and wisdom imparted—is still considered an intelligible reality. LOL! To say it another way, while the process of revelation might be described in various ways, including physical manifestations or divine interventions, the content of that revelation is fundamentally spiritual and intellectual in nature.

 

[Ahanu]

Well that's an opinion, and if you look round youtube you'll find plenty of content from Jews and Christians that refute him.

Please show me a few from Jews and Christians that refute him.

 

[Thomas]

Abdu'l-Baha's statement is a general principle about the nature of intelligible realities.

OK.

The application of this principle to the Holy Spirit is a logical extension of this metaphysical framework.

OK. I find the framework is not for me.

The Baha'i view is not denying the experience of receiving ideas from outside, but rather the nature of those ideas.

My issue is more regarding the limitation place on the nature and operation of the Holy Spirit of God, not about common intelligible realities.

 

[Thomas]

Please show me a few from Jews and Christians that refute him.

I put 'critique' next to his name in a search engine.

 

[Thomas]

@Thomas, we do not deny the concept of divine revelation. However, the Baha'i Faith differentiates between a spiritual descent and a physical one.

Nowhere do I argue for a physical descent.

 

[Ahanu]

For example, knowledge, which is a form acquired by the mind, is an intelligible thing, and to speak of entering into the mind or exiting from it is absurd. Rather, it is a relationship of acquisition, even as images are reflected in a mirror.
This seems wrong on a number of points:
1: The discussion is about the Holy Spirit of God, not about the exchange of human knowledge.

The distinction between human faculties and the Holy Spirit do not invalidate the core argument. The underlying principle is applicable to all intelligible realities - including spiritual concepts like the Holy Spirit. These intellectual realities are fundamentally qualities or relationships rather than substances.

2: Knowledge entering the mind is precisely what education and experience is. The mind adds its own narrative, but knowledge can be shared and imparted, passed on, etc... to call it absurd is somewhat silly, as the very words of the Baha'u'llal are imparting ideas from him to you ... and you give them a home.

The Baha'i Faith differentiates between the process of acquiring knowledge and the nature of knowledge itself. The process involves interaction between the mind and external stimuli. But once acquired, knowledge becomes an intelligible reality rather than a physical entity that enters the mind. The metaphor of a mirror reflecting light is used to illustrate this: the mirror does not acquire the light but simply reflects it.

3: Mirrors reflect, they do not acquire. They are not intrinsically changed in the process. A mirror learns nothing from reflecting the light. Mirrors do not acquire the light, nor the essence or qualities of light.

The mirror is used as a metaphor to illustrate that knowledge, while appearing to "enter" the mind, does not do so in a physical sense. It's a connection or correspondence, not a physical transfer of material. It becomes a mental construct, a relationship between the mind and the object of knowledge. The mirror does not change its substance by reflecting light, but it does fulfill its function of creating an image.

 

[Ahanu]

Nowhere do I argue for a physical descent.

Then explain the nature of descent and entrance if not in a physical sense.

 

[Ahanu]

I put 'critique' next to his name in a search engine.

Where are the YouTube videos? Please share.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The same can be said about the development of religions if we look at broad swaths of history and liken it to human development. One million years from now who will hold @Thomas' views about religion or my views about religion? If the past is any indication (e.g., cave art), then nobody will.

In what way Bahai religion brings a new perspective? The LGBTQ are an affront to God and women are not good enough to be members of your House of Justice. And they must wear hijab. Bahai religion is just a copy/paste of Islam. The only difference is the claim of a manifestation of Allah. Stale old wine. Of course, there is something new about fine for adultery.

 

[Ahanu]

In what way Bahai religion brings a new perspective? The LGBTQ are an affront to God and women are not good enough to be members of your House of Justice. And they must wear hijab. Bahai religion is just a copy/paste of Islam. The only difference is the claim of a manifestation of Allah. Stale old wine.

Baha'i women are not required to wear hijab. Tahirih herself proclaimed the resurrection in Baha'u'llah's very presence unveiled. Here is how Abdu'l-Baha retells this event:

Ṭáhirih and the Conference of Badasht
1Question: Can you provide an account of Ṭáhirih’s deliverance from Qazvín, her arrival in Ṭihrán, her departure for Badasht, and the events that transpired there?

2Answer: In brief, what happened is the following. Those were the early days of the Cause and no one was informed of the divine teachings. All followed the law of the Qur’án and regarded warfare, retribution, and retaliation as permissible. In Qazvín, Ḥájí Mullá Taqí8 launched an attack from the pulpit and condemned those two resplendent stars, Shaykh Aḥmad-i-Aḥsá’í and Siyyid Káẓim-i-Rashtí. He cursed and reviled them vehemently, saying: “This affair of the Báb, which is unmitigated error, is a hellish fire that has blazed forth from the grave of Shaykh Aḥmad and Siyyid Káẓim.” In sum, he uttered the most brazen words and repeatedly hurled insults and invective at them.

3A believer from Shíráz9 was present at his sermon and heard it with his own ears. As he was unaware of the divine teachings that were yet to be promulgated and the principles upon which the religion of God was to be established, he concluded that it behoved him to act according to the law of the Qur’án, and thus he set out to settle the score. He went before dawn to the mosque of the said Ḥájí Mullá Taqí and concealed himself in an alcove. When at dawn Ḥájí Mullá Taqí came to the mosque, that individual stabbed him in the back and in the mouth with a spear-tipped cane. Ḥájí Mullá Taqí fell to the ground and his assailant fled. When the people arrived, they saw the cleric lying dead.

4A great tumult erupted and throughout the city a hue and cry was raised. The dignitaries of the town decided in concert that the assassins were Shaykh Rasúl-i-‘Arab and two other individuals, whom they viewed as being among the associates of Ṭáhirih. They immediately arrested these three individuals, and Ṭáhirih herself was subjected to severe restrictions. When that man from Shíráz saw that others had been apprehended in his place, he felt it unfit to remain silent and came of his own accord to the seat of the government to declare that Shaykh Rasúl and his friends were entirely innocent of the wrongful accusations levelled against them, and that he himself was the murderer. He described in full detail what had transpired, and confessed, saying: “These people are innocent: Set them free, for I am the guilty one and it is I who must be punished.” They arrested him but kept the others captive.

5Briefly, they brought these four people from Qazvín to Ṭihrán. No matter how much that man from Shíráz protested that it was he who was guilty and that the others were entirely innocent—explaining that he had committed the crime because the victim had openly cursed and reviled his master from the pulpit and that, outraged and unable to contain himself, he had therefore stabbed him in the mouth with a spearhead—no one listened. To the contrary, Ḥájí Mullá Taqí’s son clamoured before the ministers of the government for the death of all four. Ṣadru’l-‘Ulamá, who was the head of the clergy, sought an audience with the Sháh and said: “Ḥájí Mullá Taqí was an illustrious man, highly renowned in the eyes of all and deeply revered by the people of Qazvín. In avenging the murder of such a man, a single individual is of no consequence. All four men must be turned over to the heirs of Mullá Taqí and delivered to Qazvín, that they may be executed in that city and that its inhabitants may thus be placated.” Out of regard for Ṣadru’l-‘Ulamá and the people of Qazvín, the Sháh gave word that all four could be executed.

6The man from Shíráz, seeing that the others had not been released in spite of his own arrest, escaped on a snowy night and went to the house of Riḍá Khán. Together they made a pact and departed for Shaykh Ṭabarsí, where they both met with martyrdom. As to Shaykh Rasúl and his friends, they were taken to Qazvín, where the populace fell upon them and killed them in the most horrendous manner.

7As a result, Ṭáhirih met with the greatest hardship. No one would associate with her, and all her relatives—even her husband and two sons—showed the greatest enmity and would oppress and revile her. Bahá’u’lláh dispatched Áqá Hádíy-i-Qazvíní from Ṭihrán and, by an elaborate stratagem, arranged for Ṭáhirih to be rescued from Qazvín and brought directly to the private quarters of His house. At first no one knew of this, but when some within the inner circle of the believers were informed, they came to see her. I was a child, sitting on her lap and being held in her arms. The curtain was drawn, and those believers were seated in an adjoining room while she was speaking. The purport of her discourse, which was supported by a range of arguments, as well as by the Qur’án and the traditions of the Prophet, was that in every age an illustrious and distinguished Individual must be the focal Centre of the circle of guidance, the Pole Star of the firmament of the most excellent Law of God, and a perspicuous Leader; that all may defer to Him; and that in this day that illustrious and distinguished Individual is the Báb, Who has manifested Himself. Although her speech was eloquent, yet when she perceived that Bahá’u’lláh was to raise another call and shine forth with another radiance, she became even more enkindled and reached a state that can hardly be described. She forsook all patience and composure and well-nigh rent asunder the veil of concealment. Night and day she would at turns speak forth and cry out, laugh aloud, and weep bitterly.

8Later Bahá’u’lláh sent her with a number of believers towards Badasht. Their first stop was a beautiful and verdant garden. Ṭáhirih and the friends arrived there and were later joined by Bahá’u’lláh, Who rested the night there. In the morning He sent Ṭáhirih and the friends with ample provisions to Badasht. After a few days, Bahá’u’lláh Himself went there. When He reached Badasht, Quddús had returned from Khurásán and he, too, came to Badasht, but he remained concealed.

9In Badasht there was a field with a stream running through it and gardens to either side. Quddús remained concealed in one of the gardens, and Ṭáhirih resided in the other. A tent had been pitched for Bahá’u’lláh on that field, and the other believers were also housed in tents erected on the same field. In the evenings Bahá’u’lláh, Quddús, and Ṭáhirih would meet. Bahá’u’lláh made a solemn agreement with them that the truth of the Cause would be proclaimed at Badasht, but no specific day was designated.

10Then, by chance, Bahá’u’lláh fell ill. As soon as he was informed, Quddús emerged from his concealment and entered Bahá’u’lláh’s tent. Ṭáhirih sent a message saying: “Either bring Bahá’u’lláh to the garden where I reside or I will come myself.” Quddús said: “Bahá’u’lláh is unwell and cannot come”, which was a signal. Ṭáhirih, seizing upon the opportunity, arose and, unveiled, came forth from the garden. She proceeded towards the tent of Bahá’u’lláh crying out and proclaiming: “I am the Trumpet-blast; I am the Bugle-call!”—which are two of the signs of the Day of Resurrection mentioned in the Qur’án. Calling out in this fashion, she entered the tent of Bahá’u’lláh. No sooner had she entered than Bahá’u’lláh instructed the believers to recite the Súrih of the Event from the Qur’án, a Súrih that describes the upheaval of the Day of Resurrection.

11In such wise was the Day of Resurrection proclaimed. The believers were seized with such fear and terror that some fled, others remained bewildered and dumbfounded, and still others wept and lamented. Some were so dismayed that they fell ill, and Ḥájí Mullá Ismá‘íl was so overcome with fear and terror that he cut his own throat. But after a few days, peace and composure were regained and the confusion and anxiety were dispelled. Most of those who had fled became steadfast again, and the episode of Badasht drew to a close.

Where does the Baha'i Faith state women are not good enough to be members of the House of Justice?

I'll address the women issue again since I have already addressed it before. I guess there wouldn't be so much unity in diversity if the idea were to have top-down impositions on an international scale across a diversity of cultures at different levels of development. And if such social meanings were forced, it would render Baha'u'llah's words ("One must guide mankind to the ocean of true understanding in a spirit of love and tolerance") meaningless. It does allow for diversity in various cultures that might not be entirely ready for female leadership. It provides a more organic adoption of gender equality within communities with a bottom-up approach while allowing for other countries that are ready to elect women in National Spiritual Assemblies.

Of course, a critic will simply state the restriction reinforces traditional patriarchal structures and undermines the progress of gender equality within the Faith. But to me it is all too cynical.

If you are going to have a bottom-up approach to an issue that is still not widely accepted across the world (especially in places like Afghanistan where women are denied a secondary or higher education), then the Baha'i structure allows for slow transformation through gradual acceptance of the Faith.

The abolition of slavery happened before gender equality. Gender inequality is often less visible and lacks the same clear economic exploitation, making it harder to mobilize against. Coming up with a way to remove such a deeply ingrained cultural norm without force requires wisdom, patience, and practical feet. From my understanding the Baha'i Faith says the key is through prioritizing the education of women (which you will not find in the Qur'an or the New Testament, by the way).

"Indeed the laws of God are like unto the ocean and the children of men as fish, did they but know it. However, in observing them one must exercise tact and wisdom...Since most people are feeble and far-removed from the purpose of God, therefore one must observe tact and prudence under all conditions, so that nothing might happen that could cause disturbance and dissension or raise clamour among the heedless. Verily, His bounty hath surpassed the whole universe and His bestowals encompassed all that dwell on earth. One must guide mankind to the ocean of true understanding in a spirit of love and tolerance."
-Baha'u'llah

 

[Ahanu]

My issue is more regarding the limitation place on the nature and operation of the Holy Spirit of God, not about common intelligible realities.

Then explain to us the nature of descent, entrance, and exit if not in a physical sense, and what the Holy Spirit loses if it does not "ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" in whatever sense you have in mind.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then explain to us the nature of descent, entrance, and exit if not in a physical sense..

..but surely, it is known as "the Holy Spirit", and not the Holy Body?

 

[Thomas]

Then explain to us the nature of descent, entrance, and exit if not in a physical sense ...

The Holy Spirit is not a physical body. Nor is the soul and nor, for that matter, is the mind. I think a focus on the physical is a distraction?

and what the Holy Spirit loses if it does not "ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" in whatever sense you have in mind.

It's not so much what the spirit loses, as what restraints the Baha'i teachings place upon it.

The distinction between human faculties and the Holy Spirit do not invalidate the core argument.

Surely it does, as the Holy Spirit of God is not subject to the same constraints as human faculties.

The underlying principle is applicable to all intelligible realities - including spiritual concepts like the Holy Spirit.

Ah, the Holy Spirit is merely a concept?

I rather think we fundamentally disagree on the nature of the Holy Spirit of God, and on the possibility of union between creature and Creator.

I'm not saying the Baha'i Faith is merely an intellectual exercise, but it does rather seem to me that if one does not allow any kind of union or communion between the spirit and the flesh, it's hard to see how it is anything other than that?

 

[Ahanu]

The Holy Spirit is not a physical body. Nor is the soul and nor, for that matter, is the mind. I think a focus on the physical is a distraction?

I think you evaded the question. The focus is on the nature of "descent" and "entrance," not a broader discussion of physicality. You have not explained how the concepts of "descent" and "entrance" apply to a non-physical entity. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by these terms in this context? If the Holy Spirit is not a physical entity, capable of physical movement, how can it be said to "descend" or "enter" in any meaningful way?