Iconodule

Is it possible for the logically contradictory to be true.

For instance Can Object A possess Property B and Not possess it at the same time.

Traditional understanding of logic from a Christian perspective is that the logically impossible cannot be true.

wombatwolf

...elaborate please?

Iconodule

Is it possible for a contradiction to be true. For instance is it possible bahai and Christianity to be correct. Can there be a married bachalor. Can I be holding the Pencil in my right hand but not be holding it in my hand at the same time. Can I exist and be non existent.

LordOfGoblins

you can take the question outside of the Bahai framework, and apply it to just normal life or science.
e.g.
Can an object be still and moving?
Yes. Still relative to the earth (observably), moving relative to the sun....
in terms of the Bahai writings.
You are existant relative to a rock. You are non-existant relative to God.

tonyfish58

A question we can not easily answer, basically Man is not smart enough

No matter what we come up with it will be bigger than that

As far as the question - "For instance Can Object A possess Property B and Not possess it at the same time". I would say yes

If you believe Man has a Soul This fits that question

I can own a dog to look after, but it has its own identity.

My thoughts would be another example

Fun Question

Regards & Cheers Tony

tonyfish58

I do not believe religions are a contradiction - Only Man has made them that way - So yes they are both Correct in their pure form. An unaltered Word.

As to the other questions?

Regards Tony

Iconodule

Logic is universal inside and outside of religion and no the earth cannot be still and moving at the same time. Even if the earth is stationary (which it isn't) and turns that doesn't mean it is still and moving, we speaking in the realm here not of vague ambiguities but hard logic. I think its more appropiate and clear to ask this, Can there be a married Bachalor?

Iconodule

Teh religions necessarily contradict but we can ignore that part as its irrelevent, i want to know in the bahai faith either by its founders or prominent representatives or just your opinions, can a logical contradiction be true.

LordOfGoblins

Married bachelor is a human definition. It does not describe scientific or religious reality like "movement" does. So of course it is going to be absolute.

Iconodule

Then lets describe it so you can't avoid answering the question. Married as in being committed to a spouse, say in the case of a man and woman whom exchange vows of dedication to one another so as to be in a life long relationship which remains between the two exclusively.

Now Bachalor, 1 a male with no romantic relationship with another, one whom is not dating and or not married to another person. 2 A Male whom may be seeking to date and or get married.

Now I find it fascinating that you act as if science and religion are to be the only things which must involve direct definitions as if life cannot provide us with strict definitions of things, for instance when I say I am using this keyboard to type, you envisage from the context and use of the word a very specific object which is connected to a computer used for inputing symbols, numbers and letters so as to communicate data of anykind for any real purpose, but in this case to respond to a bahai. There does seem to be objectivity in the trivial.

LordOfGoblins

I didnt avoid the question. I already gave an example of an object on the earth that possesses movement relative to the sun but no movement relative to the observer.
Since you gave the keyboard example then I will give an example of two balls.
One is moving and one isnt and I say "pick up the ball".
you say "which one".
I say "the one that isnt moving".
Now have I lied or been deceptive? according to your definition... yes??
Remember they are both moving relative to the sun, but relative to the observer only one is moving..

Iconodule

So I am to take that by your answer you are inferring the logically impossible is true? (Im taking you example even though it is a poor example for truth at this moment) Would you say this is the position of the bahai faith in general tha the logically impossible is true.

Now with the ball example you haven't lied, you just haven't been explicit or clear from the outset of the request that was made, to ask someone to pick up the ball is fine, but if they need clarification because the vagueness of your request might demand it, means no lie or deception on your part, only a lack of defining the goal. But then you draw in relative to the sun as in relative to the person, well clearly the the sun's position is not going to be taken into consideration unless it is of some momental importance to that of the perosn you are arguing to.

So I will as this question agian. Can Object A, both have property B and not have it at the same time. Is this possible in any given world.

LordOfGoblins

Not in an absolute way ( I think) but in a relative way yes (as I have shown).

LordOfGoblins

And by the way. Object 'A' is the ball and property 'B' is movement. So how have i not answered the question?

Iconodule

You really have not shown in a relative way, Lets examine what you said.

The earth is moving relative to the sun, but it is not moving relative to us. This is not so much a logical contradiction as a difference of perspective from different angles, it in no way means both are true. Because the earth does move regardless of what we think from our own perspective, it spins and travels around the sun each year, this cannot be changed from either the sun's position or our position, so the relative here is not really applicable as the relative can obviously be wrong, like in the case of the relative position humans have which lead them to the erreonous belief in geocentrism, it doesn't matter their personal opinions they are still wrong. So really this argues for the absoluteness of logic in this regard and that there is not a logical contradiction but rather a mistake on behalf of a person solely relying on their position.

Now you can't use this example. But lets make the example even clearer shall we (because there is no way based on the (should I dare say) universal understanding of the words married and bachalor that it could possibly be true without stripping the words themselves of their meaning and redefining it) with another example.

Can Jesus both posses the property of Humanity and not have the property of humanity at the same time. IS this possible in any given world. That is he can be completely human but also be completely inhuman, he can be filled with humanity but lack all humanity. Is this possible.

LordOfGoblins

A change of perspective IS what relative is. Thats all it is. Relative to us is our perpective. Relative to the sun is the suns perspective... right?

No Jesus cannot be human and inhuman. He is both Human and divine.

LordOfGoblins

And no I think you might be wrong about relative being a personal opinion only of no import.
Relative to US THE EARTH IS REALLY NOT MOVING....
relative to the sun, the earth really is moving...

Iconodule

And that does not affect the logical truth of it all, rather speaks as to the fallibility of those in the relative positions not knowing all the facts, it does not prove a logical fallacy of non contradiction to be true.

But I'm glad you agree jesus cannot be both human and not human at the same time, this essentially affirms that (if I may be so bold) you would agree with me saying that a logical contradiction cannot be plausible. Is this the position of most bahais? And do you have any writings of your founders on this subject?

arthra

Sounds like you're interested in "scholasticism".. Is this new to you?

The definition:

Scholasticism is a method of critical thought which dominated teaching by the academics (scholastics, or schoolmen) of medieval universities in Europe from about 1100–1500, and a program of employing that method in articulating and defending orthodoxy in an increasingly pluralistic context. It originated as an outgrowth of, and a departure from, Christian monastic schools.[1]

Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something parodied like can God make two mountains without an intervening valley? and other choice ditties...

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

"Can several angels be in the same place?"

"God is omnipotent, i.e. God can do anything which is logically possible. Making a stone which is so heavy that it cannot be moved is logically possible. Therefore God, being omnipotent, can make a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved. But if God makes a stone so heavy that it cannot be moved, then God cannot move it."

"the earth cannot be still and moving at the same time"

"Can Jesus both posses the property of Humanity and not have the property of humanity at the same time."

"he can be filled with humanity but lack all humanity"

Oh dear...Something that "begins with words and ends with words"

LordOfGoblins

Frankly this topic puts me to sleep. It is the sort of thing you can just go around in circles with and that is why I just keep my answers as short as possible.

Iconodule

Oh I suppose so, I do find we have to be logical when it comes to religion or it looses all meaning in the grand scheme of things, there are also prominent Orhtodox philosophers of Logic, I think Richard Swinburne comes first to my mind on this, and while the orthodox dont explicitely celebrate this, it is not condemned and I find it a valuable tool for defending the faith. But through everything you have said you have not answered my question and I would like you to do so, especially from quotes from the bahai founders as that would be most beneficial to me.

But I suppose what your asking is this, Can God do the logically impossible? And I have to say, no he cannot, he cannot create a rock that is too heavy that he himself cannot lift it. These in paradoxes as it were, do not suggest God is impotent but rather suggest that Omnipotent is not to be defined as "all powerful, can do whatever" but rather, "Can do what is logically possible" I find this a much more coherrent and easy to swallow view of God, after all if God can do the logically impossible and cause himself to cease to exist while still being eternal we recognise that this is something which is plainly impossible and cannot happen as an eternal being cannot cease to exist and still be called eternal.

Iconodule

The topic of logic is fascinating, especially in it's relation to God. And I think it is of critical importance that a system of logic be arrived at through some sort of reason and the faith as then it seems we become subjectivists merely clinging to what we personally desire.

Fadl

Iconodule,

I have to admit that I find this accusation a most strange thing coming from you. I have found many of your arguments quite illogical. Nevertheless, in your defense, logic is not the be all end all that some have imagined it to be. Logic is a very important tool, but like any tool, it has its limits.

Meet Kurt Gödel


Cheers

Iconodule

I am unsure as to your accusations against me... What have I accused anyone of? Is asking a question an accusation? Why won't anyone give a clear answer? I ask this out of a sincere motive, so as to get to the heart of the bahai and why they truely believe in the things they do. I suspect the bahai do have room in their hearts for the logically contradictory but I won't make such a claim unless I have some sort of consensus or some sort of statement concerning this from the bahai authors which I expected our friend arthra to give as he seems very knowledgable as to the founders of bahai and their writings.

But what is your opinion fadl? Can the logically impossible exist? Can there be a married bachalor? Can Jesus be both man and not man in any given world? Please answer the question, thank you.

Sboyce

Yes. Quantum mechanics of duality of atoms
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simple as that.

Sboyce

Oh and since the Baha'i idea of science and religion is equal...

Also, I don't claim to know God's plan, I have Faith that Baha'u'llah is God's messenger with His plan.

ahanu

Yes. In my opinion, when we investigate reality, we find both do not contradict one another: it is only when we bring in cultural contructs (such as miracles) that contradictions come into play. However, these cultural constructs (miracles) do not reflect what actually happened (or happens).

Anyway, I want to play around with your examples.

No. Yes. Hmm . . . does it count if the bachelor is a bachelor in Sims, but married outside the virtual world?!



What if the virtual world and real world become indistinguishable in the future? Then we would have a married bachelor! What do you think?

Ever seen the 2011 movie called Source Code?



In the movie, the soldier has eight minutes to save people on a train containing a bomb . . . but he is dead. However, he can use "Source Code" to save them. According to the quantum philosophy behind this film, you can exist and be non-existent.

If you think examples from movies and video games are not real-world examples, you might want to check out what scientists have said. The law of non-contradiction states: “A thing cannot both be and not be the same thing in the same respect and at the same time.” "

"At the same time" is problematic: we know time is relative, so people in different states of motion will have various notions of what and where "the same time" is. Consider again the implications of Einstein's theory of relativity: "space and time, according to relativity, are no longer absolute; but a mixture of the two--'space-time'--remains absolute." Indeed, Joao Magueijo continues his critique of the notion "at the same time" by saying:

"The world Einstein was born into was one in which scientists believed in a 'clockwork universe.' Clocks would tick everywhere at the same rate. Time was believed to be a great constant of the universe. Likewise space was conceived as a rigid and abolute structure. These two entities, absolute space and absolute time, combined to provide the unchangeable framework for the Newtonian perception of the world: the 'clockwork universe.'"

In the light of Einstein, "at the same time" is problematic (as I said above).

"A thing cannot both be and not be the same thing . . . "

Consider quantum mechanics. John Polkinghorne writes:

"It turns out that quantum mechanically, you can mix together possibilities, like 'being here' and 'being there', that we normally think of as being mutually exclusive of each other. The quantum mechanically learned follow their master, Paul Dirac, in calling this the 'superposition principle.'"

ahanu

Good observation, Iconodule! Continue with that idea! From a higher perspective, the lower perspective is wrong. You wrote:

The Bab reconciles differenct interpretations of scripture by focusing on the station of the interpreter:

"Thus these two would dispute: This one sayeth, 'Thou art an extremist,' and the other one sayeth, 'Thou art intolerant.' This one adduceth evidence from a word of God, and that one reasoneth by another word of God. But I affirm unto them: Ye both are true and right, on the condition that thou not say unto him, 'He is an extremist,'' and he not say unto thee, 'Thou art intolerant.' As to thee who art in the lower station, thou verily art created by this verse, and thus thou wouldst not comprehend above it. As to thee who art in the highest station, thou art fashioned by that verse and thou canst understand the station beneath thine existence . . . Thus, wert thou to acquire wisdom, thou wouldst not reject anyone because of his limitation, but must foster the growth of all in the palm of thy mercy. Shouldst thou succeed in elevating him to the realm of glory, great would be his blessing from thee; and should he fail to ascend to thy height, thou shouldst train him within his own rank of existence. For verily he too is a creation of thy Lord; God loveth him and he loveth God . . . "

So you've already answered your own question!

The Bab writes: "God hath ordained two stations for the Sun of Truth: the unseen station, where naught is seen in the Will save God, and the manifest station, where naught is seen in It except the Primal Will." This does not mean both positions are equally valid, because one perspective is higher than the other.

ahanu

To conclude:

Iconodule is saying, "Baha'is do not follow the law of noncontradiction, for Baha'is say, 'Jesus is not God; Jesus is God.'" However, as we have seen, Iconodule states things can be seen from different perspectives (even though one perspective is objectively wrong from a higher perspective):

"The earth is moving relative to the sun, but it is not moving relative to us. This is not so much a logical contradiction as a difference of perspective from different angles, it in no way means both are true. Because the earth does move regardless of what we think from our own perspective, it spins and travels around the sun each year, this cannot be changed from either the sun's position or our position, so the relative here is not really applicable as the relative can obviously be wrong, like in the case of the relative position humans have which lead them to the erreonous belief in geocentrism, it doesn't matter their personal opinions they are still wrong."

You can apply the same thing to theology in order to reconcile differences (even though one perspective is objectively wrong from a higher perspective).

I hope this answers the question you have answered already!

Iconodule

Now you suggest that it is the cultural constructs which are different, now I have to dissagree with this. On a fundmantal level the early CHristians contradict the Bahai, consider the high view of the body within Christinaity, the body is not something that is evil in Christianity, Christianity has never been dualistic Like the bahai has (Bahai seem to me to clearly affirm the spiritual is greater than the physical)
Now the example I gave about Christ and your answer does confuse me, as it seems perfectly illogical that Jesus cannot both be completely man and incompletely man at the same time, he cannot possess both these properties because one neccesseriliy excludes the other. Bahai don't believe in this idea, in fact no one believes in this illogical idea, I merely asked if it were possible in any given world.
So I still have not gained a clear answer, you suggest with the idea of quantum mechanics that logical contradictions can be true, therefore am I to believe you think that it is possible A can possess B and not possess B at the same time?
Now it seems to me different perspectives in theology don't quite jive well with the refutation I gave and it doesn't make such a thing as a logical contradiction true. For instance the early Christians believed Christ had physically rose from the dead, they were wrong about this according to the bahai, they can't have been right and the bahai be right about this point and the bahai recognise this per their (bad) attempts to say "no the early Christians really didn't believe that!" But we could go a more clear example, say the life of the so called prophet of Islam. Bahai would have us ignore the historical texts surrounding Muhammad and accept only those that their prophet would have used, but lets consider per an actually good standard the satanic verses in hte hadiths, that per the use of the embarressment principle that Muhammad at a certain time did indeed seem to give false doctrine from what it would appear satan, but the bahai insist Satan is a non entity, a mere symbol. This is a contradiction beyond the social construct and the bahai are clearly guilty of it. But lets go to another example.
Baha'u'llah tells us that we should not go to other men so as to ask for forgiveness, like in the practice of confession, yet the New testament says to go to other men and confess your sins, and in fact the apostles are given explicit authority so as to forgive the sins of people on earth and the early church understood this to mean to forgive sins per God's will and this was passed down to the next generation.
We can also present more logical contradictions which are not only social constructs but fundamental to the religions. The Trinity for example, the bahai trinity and hte Christian trinity (i hestiate to even say bahai Trinity) Cannot both be possibly true, they fundamentally exclude one another.
But I have not yet received a clear answer to my question.
Is the logically impossible possible?

ahanu

Can you give examples from Baha'i scripture that states the body is evil? Can you give examples from early Christian writers saying the body is not evil?

Ask yourself this question: Does saying the spiritual is greater than the physical necessarily mean the body is evil?

For example, the Puritans believed the body was evil. A dark view of human nature often involves punitive strategies from the believer. See Alfie Kohn for more on the correlation between a dark view of human nature and punitive strategies. Now I will give a Christian example. Itwas Cotton Mather (1663-1728), a Puritan minister, who said:

"Better whipt than damn'd."

He is essentially saying, "beat the hell out of your children, because they are born evil." Mather says:

And surely there is in all children, though not alike, a stubbornness, and stoutness of mind arising from natural pride, which must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down.... This fruit of natural corruption and root of actual rebellion both against God and man must be destroyed, and no manner of way nourished, except we will plant a nursery of contempt of all good persons and things, and of obsti- nacy therein.... For the beating, and keeping down of this stubbornness parents must provide carefully for two things: first that children's wills and willfulness be restrained and repressed.... The second help is an inuring of them from the first, to such a meanness in all things, as may rather pluck them down, than lift them up.

Puritans trained their children through physical punishment. Baha'is, on the other hand, never say we should physically punish children in order to train them, because Abdu'l-baha did not have a dark view of human nature. Consider what the Bab writes:

"The substance of this gate is that God never wisheth that any soul should be saddened, how much less that he should be inflicted with harm. Thus, He hath prohibited all from punishing a child who hat noot yet reached the age of five, save by words, and He hath prohibited causing him any grief. And after reaching the age of five, more than five light strikes, not to the flesh but to a protecting cover, is not permitted, and should not be inflicted in a disrespectful and discourteous manner, as is customary in these days."

The Puritans accepted the doctrine of original sin, so physical punishment and a dark view of human nature go hand-in-hand with them.

In a sense . . . the body is like water: water can exist in a state of purity or impurity. For example, the Bab prohibits the smoking of tobacco. He also emphasizes physical purity:

"Nothing is more dearly beloved in the Bayan than purity, refinement, and cleanliness . . . and in the Dispensation of the Bayan, God wisheth not to witness amongst humans that which is other than joy and radiance, and He desireth that all appear in utmost spiritual and physical purity, that their own souls be not repulsed, how much less the souls of others."

So Baha'is don't have a dark view of human nature. If Baha'is believed the body was evil, wouldn't it show through Baha'i behavior?!

It would be interesting to look into what early Christians believed about corporal punishment . . .

Sen McGlinn

Certainly the logically impossible is possible - if the logic is wrong. Logic is constructed in the mind, it may be based on bad information, or it may contain bad reasoning. When this is the case, two things may appear to be in contradiction.

The good logician realises this, and does not have too much faith in his logic. Logic is one of those fields in which "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or drink not at all."

One might say, that if God is the logician, being all-knowing and infallible, then God's logic must be perfect and for God, the logically impossible really is impossible. However if God is omnipotent, then even what is truly logically impossible, is possible for God.

From this I conclude that we can never say with certainty that what appears to be logically impossible, really is impossible. There is no logic without a logician. If the logician is fallible and imperfectly informed, what appears logically impossible may be actually true; if the logician is infallible and perfectly informed, all things are possible for such a logician.

Humans and human language cannot formulate any statement about the real world in a comprehensive way, so two statements about the real world that appear logically contradictory, can both be true. For example, "man is an animal" and "man is not an animal" are both true, in different senses.

As for what the Bahai writings say, I think the quote from the Bab about standpoint epistemology says it all, but here's something similar from the Bahai writings. The question at issue here is, can reality be multiple and one, at the same time:

ahanu

Paul sounds more like Origen than the Christian apologists of today and yesterday. Most people probably just didn't get the higher understanding of what a resurrected body is. No wonder Origen writes:

And so God "gives to each thing a body as he pleases," as in the case of [plants] that are sown, so also in the case of those who are, as it were, sown in dying and in due time receive, out of what was sown, the body that is bestowed by God to each according to what he deserves. And we also hear the scripture teaching us at great length the difference between that which is, as it were, "sown," and that which is, as it were, "raised" from it, saying even that one is "sown in corruption, raised in incorruption; sown in dishonor, raised in glory; sown in weakness, raised in power; sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body. And yet let him who is able grasp what is meant when [Paul] says: "As is the one of clay, so, too, are they who are of clay; and as is the one of heaven, so, too, are they who are of heaven. And as we have born the image of the one of clay, we shall also bear the image of the one of heaven."

Although the Apostle [Paul] wanted to conceal the forbidden meaning of this passage as something not appropriate for simple folk or for the common hearing of those who are led [only] by faith to what is better, nevertheless, so we would not mishear his words, he was then compelled to say after "let us bear the image of the one of heaven" also this: "But I say this, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does corruption inherit incorruption." Then, knowing that there was something forbidden and secret in this passage, as was fitting for someone leaving behind, through his writings, words with a certain meaning for those coming after him, he adds and says: "Behold, I tell you a mystery," which is his way of introducing things deeper and more secret which are appropriately kept hidden from the multitude, as is even written in Tobit: "It is good to keep the king's mystery a secret", but respectable and fitting "to honorably reveal the works of God" to the multitude with what is 'conveniently' true. (Contra Celsum 5.19; see also 5.14-16)

Origen and Paul talk about two gospels: the gospel for the simpleton (babies) and the gospel for the adults (1 Cor. 3.1; 1 Cor. 2.6-7). I love this idea. You say Christianity has never been dualistic, but it seems Paul's view of the resurrection does not mean a resurrection of a corpse that becomes "glorified."

ahanu

You misunderstood post number 28, where I state it is a matter of perspective, meaning the believer's spiritual station influences whether they see Jesus as God, or see Jesus as not being God. However, there is a third perspective: The Bab is basically saying, "from your own perspective, both of you speak truthfully." He does not force the person speaking from a lower station to accept the higher station, because he is stuck in his lower station and may not spiritually evolve to a higher one. How is that "perfectly illogical?" Afterall, you wrote:

"The earth is moving relative to the sun, but it is not moving relative to us. This is not so much a logical contradiction as a difference of perspective from different angles,"

Exactly. You regard the lower perspective as false. You don't see how both can be correct, for you say:

it in no way means both are true.

You also say:

Because the earth does move regardless of what we think from our own perspective, it spins and travels around the sun each year, this cannot be changed from either the sun's position or our position, so the relative here is not really applicable as the relative can obviously be wrong,

Exactly. From a higher perspective, a lower perspective is wrong. However, when discussing if the Earth moves or not from the perspective of a person, we should note both positions are correct in relation to that person's spiritual station . . . so it does not mean the lower perspective is an objective truth. The person speaking from a lower perspective can't grasp how the Earth can move and why it is that, when he jumps, he does not move too, so he asserts the Earth does not move. The person with a higher perspective sees this person as an idiot. Ever seen the movie Agora? In this movie, Hypatia disproves the idea that, if you jump and the Earth is moving, you should move too: she gets on a moving boat, drops a bag, and notes that the bag falls straight down, because the bag is moving at the same rate of speed as the boat. So the person from a higher perspective may reason, "if the Earth is moving, people move at the same speed too. Therefore, just because the Earth moves does not necessarily imply you would move if you jumped!"

ahanu

Maybe. I have not reached a conclusion on the law of noncontradiction. So what do you think of the statement "at the same time" in the light of Einstein's theory of relativity?

See my post on Origen. Well, the early Christians did believe in a physical resurrection. What I'm arguing is Paul, Peter, James, and Jesus, for example, did not believe in a physical resurrection. From the perspective of early Christians, they could not grasp life after death without their old bodies, so they were right in their own perspective, but it is still a lower perspective. It is for the simpleton.

Why should I believe the word of spurious hadiths, saying Muhammad believed Satan to be an independent entity? And if Satan is not an independent entity, does this not imply evil is an illusion?! Yes! See Some Answered Questions and the non-existence of evil. So how could Baha'is believe the body is evil since Baha'is believe evil is a dependent entity? As for the Trinity and confessions, I could make the same arguments using Baha'i epistemology against them. How do we know the Christian trinity is an objective fact? How do we know it does not just appear that way from the perspective of an orthodox Christian? That is a tough question.

ahanu

Great example. Perhaps Iconodule would say you're perfectly illogical!

Iconodule

They most certaintly did believe in the ressurection as has been amply demonstrated before, it seems your not really dissagreeing with me, that there really cannot be the logically contradictory. For instance Can God create a rock he hismelf cannot lift? Can God cause himself to not exist while still exisitng at the same time? Having both no substance and substane at the same time? This seems unthinkable and beyond illogical. But the counter examples given aren't matters of absolutes but are matters of subjective defintion and opinion, saying man is an animal may be true to some people and it may be wrong to some people that does nothing to say that both are true necessarily, rather we have to admit this to the realm of speculation. So we need to stop confusing the subject matter bahais, and answer the question directly. Is a logical contradiction possible in your view, a simple yes or no will do, not these misguided attempts to demonstrate it as such, and if this demonstration is to indeed indicate the bahai believe that hte logically contradictory can be correct I understand now why bahai believe in what they do, but even the bahai seem not to be able to put this line of thought into practice with all things. For instance you would ignore where Christ gives authority to the apostles to forgive sins but it seems you have to accept your devine founders teachings on the subject over Christ.

Now how can we trust the spurious hadiths? Now Im not advocating these should be trusted indeed the hadiths are very much unhistorical in most cases but the case in which Muhammad preaches things from satan for a time is an exception it would seem. Traditioanl muslims reject the hadith as authentic but the current historical method would actually say this hadith is very realiable because if we think about it logically, no muslim in his right mind would attribute such a thing to Muhammad (the final prophet) because it is embarressing, it is a humiliating thought that Muhammad should have ever received words and preached words from satan as the Jews and Christians surely would have called Muhammad out on this. So there is no motivation for this story to be made up by any muslim for any purpose especially by those whom compiled the hadiths in the first place. But on a brief note, without the hadith the bahai essentially have no idea as to interpret the quran as it seems the quran is very dependant on the historical circumstances of Muhammad, such as Muhammad's confrontation with the Christians and them questioning him about the identity of the word and discrepencies and contradictions in the quran, to which Muhammad was granted a sura explaining that the interpretation of these verses are a mystery basically, its quite the account and i will post the accounts should you want it.

Now how do we know the trinity is objective fact? I don't think we can know this through any sort of pure reason but I do think we can know this through divine revelation, consider that Jesus tells us to Baptise in the name of the father and hte son and the holy spirit in Mathew 28:19 (Something bahais and muslims never do and seem to oppose) but the key thing here is to note the use of the term name, its in the singular, Jesus does not say Baptise in the names of the father and the son and the spirit, but rather the name, indicating that these persons share the same name. Now what name does Jesus share with the father? I think from the comments made by Christ and his understanding of himself and his identity we can conclude that is the name YHWH in the Old testament, but then I would argue for an indirect approach but nontheless divine. Consider what the New testament has to say in the realm of succession in the church, it mentions the laying down of hands, the establishing of Churches, the authority of the Bishop, and deacon and what their responsibilities and standards must be, and we know what those who were taught by the apostles believed (it was the most non bahai you could get) and this succession carried through to the council of Nicea in which a signifficant portion of Bishops from all over the empire (mostly the east thought hte west was not excluded) came to decide on this matter of doctrine, what is Christ's relation to the father and they decided eccumenically that the son was of the same substance as the father. And later generations of those within the church through the same succession affirmed this council in it's entirety to the point where there is none ordained in aposotlic succession whom would deny Christ is God and be considered in communion with the church.

Added part

Dualism doesn't necessarily state that the body is evil it can mean the body is inferior to the Spirit which bahais seemingly believe which is entirely contradictory to early Christian thought and Judaism and is more in line with greek platonism than anything else. As for what the purtian believes, that seems to be entirely irrelevent to our current discussion they were hyper calvanists and a product of the reformation and no doubt had many erreoneous doctrines and practices which were not like that of the early Christianity.

Now to suggest Paul was some sort of semi Gnostic or originist I think is profoundly misunderstanding saint Paul to say the least. It would seem that if Paul was a pharisee as he claimed then he would not think in such a way as the greek platonist did, in fact phariseeism was known for its stuanch belief in the ressurection at the end of time and I see no reason to have paul deny this other than a misreading of the text in which speaks about the spiritual as opposed to the physical. St Peter tells us Ignorant and distorted men misunderstood saint Paul, now who is the best cannidate for this? Those whom were raised Jewish and understood Christianity in that light, or Gentiles whom had converted with their previous convictions about Dualism and ht erelationship between the soul and body? I have to logically say it was the gnostics, the docetics who did not understand saint Paul. And While I respect Origen one has to realise he was not the voice of the ancinet church, should we after all ignore the voice of Saint Ignaitus of antioch? Who speaks of the Eucharist as being the real body and blood of the saviour Jesus Christ? This same man whom was taught by the apostle John? He certaintly was not dualist and was known for his staunch opposition to the Docetics and God bless him for that.
And I dare say that the a purely spiritual ressurection is something that was unfamiliar to paul, as we know there were terms Saint Paul could have used to establish this, but the terms he did use indicate a real literal ressurection, Ancient 1st century jews did not speak in such ways.

Yeshua

I really admire the Bab for his teachings on children. He was truly a remarkable advocate for the rights and dignity of children, and way ahead of his time. To think he wrote what he wrote in the mid 19th century!

I'm not sure that the Early Fathers really addressed the issue of corporal punishment in any great depth. They probably simply followed the established Roman Law principle in this regard, so perhaps you should check up Justinian's Institutes (sixth century codification of Roman Law by Christian Byzantine Emperor Justinian I, otherwise called the Code of Justinian). I do know that St. John Chrysostom, when speaking about reprimanding children, says that a parent should punish a child more by the tone of his voice, and by warning, rather than by physical violence. He writes also:

"...If the boy begins to speak ill of others, his father is to punish him with stern looks, words of reproach, gentleness and promises, and corporal punishment but the last only rarely. A child should fear being struck rather than receive such a punishment..."

According to Chrysostom parents should rather "embrace and caress their children on a regular basis".

Whether he was representative in this regard of the majority view or not is impossible for me too tell. I think that the Apostolic Constitutions mentioned that parents should "discipline their children" and may have permitted some form of corporal punishment, such as a light beating or such. St. John Chrysostom says: “As soon as you see the fear [of your reproach] working on the child, hold back, for our nature needs relaxation.”

Naturally I am completely opposed to corporal punishment. I think its obscene that parents think they have to resort to acts of violence, however light, to discipline their children. What of the rod of mercy?

Iconodule

" One might say, that if God is the logician, being all-knowing and infallible, then God's logic must be perfect and for God, the logically impossible really is impossible. However if God is omnipotent, then even what is truly logically impossible, is possible for God. "

I think this is a misunderstanding of the idea of omnipotence, traditioanlly Christians have not understood the idea of omnipotence meaning, can do whatever he wants. Rather I think Omnipotence has to mean God can only do the logically plausible, this in no way limits God as the logically impossible is implausible and impossible from the very outset. For instance God Cannot cause himself to not exist and continue to be God, this is a logical contradiction which cannot be true in any given world and for it to be true such a being was at a certain time non existant therefore there was a certain time he was Not Divine or God, all Powerful, all knowing and Eternal. How could he bring himself into existance once more since he has effectively made himself non existent? Its fun to play these games of logic but ultimately they demonstrate that only the logical is possible.

ahanu

And immediately after Paul says he was a Pharisee, he writes:

"But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ."
(Philippians 3.7-8)

Paul calls the teaching of that sect "rubbish." Paul had a powerful revelation that showed him he was wrong:

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood
(1 Galatians 1.11-16)

For example, Paul says the Pharsaic teachings (such as the oral law) no longer apply to him and his fellow believers (1 Galatians 2.1-20). He clearly left the teachings of the Pharisees behind, so anything is up for grabs now.

By the way, even Josephus, as a Pharisee, accepted Paul's two-body view of resurrection.