"Relative" vs "absolute" existence
mike3
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/839cb5a1f4ae7a2a?hl=en&dmode=source
"I believe neither human science nor human religion will ever be
perfect.
Furthermore I don't think the perfection of science and/or religion is
dependent upon human spirituality. Regardless the progress of human
"spiritual transformation" or any other advance, this physical world
will
always be imperfect, contingent, flawed, tangential, dependent and
relative. "
Notice how the post says "this *physical* world". What about the
*spiritual* world(s)? What about the worlds after death and of
eternity? Are those worlds perfect, non-contingent, flawless, (antonym
unknown), independent, and absolute? I.e. will we experience absolute,
noncontingent, perfect existence at some point? I would not think so,
because I think that is reserved for God, no?
Douglas McAdam
If you have a search engine and google "perfections" in the Baha'i
Writings you will get many hits that show the perfections are relative
and endless. Only God is absolute perfection, all others are relative.
Here are a couple of quotes -
"The reason of the mission of the Prophets is to educate men, so
that this piece of coal may become a diamond, and this fruitless tree
may be engrafted and yield the sweetest, most delicious fruits. When
man reaches the noblest state in the world of humanity, then he can
make further progress in the conditions of perfection, but not in
state; for such states are limited, but the divine perfections are
endless."
Baha'i Education (2:16)
15] Both before and after putting off this material form, there is
progress in perfection but not in state. So beings are consummated in
perfect man. There is no other being higher than a perfect man. But
man when he has reached this state can still make progress in
perfections but not in state because there is no state higher than
that of a perfect man to which he can transfer himself. He only
progresses in the state of humanity, for the human perfections are
infinite. Thus, however learned a man may be, we can imagine one more
learned.
Deepening (3:1)
regards,
doug
mike3
This is more like what I thought.
That second quote is interesting. Is that part of the context for the
thing
I mentioned in the thread "eternal inescapable hell" here? If so, it
clears
those questions up too.
> doug
> On Jul 1, 2009, at 5:14 PM, mike3 wrote:
>
> > I read this posting:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.religion.bahai/msg/839cb5a1f4ae7a2...
Douglas McAdam
On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:36 PM, mike3 wrote:
>>
>> 15] Both before and after putting off this material form, there is
>> progress in perfection but not in state. So beings are consummated in
>> perfect man. There is no other being higher than a perfect man. But
>> man when he has reached this state can still make progress in
>> perfections but not in state because there is no state higher than
>> that of a perfect man to which he can transfer himself. He only
>> progresses in the state of humanity, for the human perfections are
>> infinite. Thus, however learned a man may be, we can imagine one more
>> learned.
>> Deepening (3:1)
>>
>> regards,
>
> This is more like what I thought.
>
> That second quote is interesting. Is that part of the context for the
> thing
> I mentioned in the thread "eternal inescapable hell" here? If so, it
> clears
> those questions up too.
Hi Mike-
I'm not sure what you mean about the context for what you mentioned in
a previous post.
doug