Divine revelation

[robrecht]

This comes closest. Requires is not a good word here. Spiritual evolution of humanity and the physical evolution of human are parallel, and follows a natural progressive process according to God's plan. All of our physical existence is progressive cyclic existence of birth death and renewal, of many possible worlds.

A parallel would be as an individual grows and matures he/she is progressively educated.

Does not sound right.

Do you believe revelation occurs apart from human theological reflection, without human activity?

[robrecht]

Shuny, another question about Baha'i revelation. If I remember correctly, you've said that Baha'i revelation is about spiritual laws and not about science, correct? But I also see you quoting Baha'u'llah's saying, 'Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun,' and I think your implication is that this must have been revealed to Baha'u'llah because such knowledge of atomic energy was not yet known scientifically.

Tonight I came across this quote from Baha'u'llah, quite by accident, and it reminded me of my previously unasked question above:

Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import. The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-82.html

Is this considered Bahai revelation or just private, mystical musing of some kind?

It seems like he is teaching that there is some kind of astrological influence of celestial spheres upon our physical world. Is this science or spiritual law?

Is it a spiritual law that stars are fixed, that every one has its own planets, and every planet is populated by creatures?

[robrecht]

Shuny, you said earlier that this Sen McGlinn guy was 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.' Do you have a reference for this claim? Or any of my other questions above?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, another question about Baha'i revelation. If I remember correctly, you've said that Baha'i revelation is about spiritual laws and not about science, correct? But I also see you quoting Baha'u'llah's saying, 'Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun,' and I think your implication is that this must have been revealed to Baha'u'llah because such knowledge of atomic energy was not yet known scientifically.

Tonight I came across this quote from Baha'u'llah, quite by accident, and it reminded me of my previously unasked question above:

Thou hast, moreover, asked Me concerning the nature of the celestial spheres. To comprehend their nature, it would be necessary to inquire into the meaning of the allusions that have been made in the Books of old to the celestial spheres and the heavens, and to discover the character of their relationship to this physical world, and the influence which they exert upon it. Every heart is filled with wonder at so bewildering a theme, and every mind is perplexed by its mystery. God, alone, can fathom its import. The learned men, that have fixed at several thousand years the life of this earth, have failed, throughout the long period of their observation, to consider either the number or the age of the other planets. Consider, moreover, the manifold divergencies that have resulted from the theories propounded by these men. Know thou that every fixed star hath its own planets, and every planet its own creatures, whose number no man can compute.

http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-82.html

Is this considered Bahai revelation or just private, mystical musing of some kind?

It seems like he is teaching that there is some kind of astrological influence of celestial spheres upon our physical world. Is this science or spiritual law?

Is it a spiritual law that stars are fixed, that every one has its own planets, and every planet is populated by creatures?

In the above quote, it is neither science nor spiritual law. Spiritual Law is in the Kitab-i-aqdas. In the writings of the Baha'i Faith there are commentaries on the nature of our physical existence. I admit I am uncertain as to the implications of this quote. In other quotes the nature of our physical existence is described as a dynamic changing cyclic process. In the Baha'i writings Creation and Revelation (knowledge) is progressive process and changes constantly. Science itself is a form of Revelation of the knowledge of our physical existence, and in the Baha'i Faith scripture must be understood in the light of the progressive knowledge of science.

In considering all religions, there commentary concerning the nature of our universe reflects the time of the Revelation. I see no difference in the Baha'i faith, except in the Baha'i Faith the progressive changing nature of knowledge, and the progressive continuous nature of Creation. The main difference in the Baha'i Faith and other ancient religions is the acceptance of the relative evolving nature of human knowledge, and the cosmogony of origins distinctly reflects the modern cosmology of origins, and the basics of physics.

[robrecht]

In the above quote, it is neither science nor spiritual law. Spiritual Law is in the Kitab-i-aqdas. In the writings of the Baha'i Faith there are commentaries on the nature of our physical existence. I admit I am uncertain as to the implications of this quote. In other quotes the nature of our physical existence is described as a dynamic changing cyclic process. In the Baha'i writings Creation and Revelation (knowledge) is progressive process and changes constantly. Science itself is a form of Revelation of the knowledge of our physical existence, and in the Baha'i Faith scripture must be understood in the light of the progressive knowledge of science.

Thanks, Shuny. What about the quote: 'Split the atom's heart, and lo! Within it thou wilt find a sun', is that part of the Baha'i sacred scriptures? Clearly it sounds scientific so I would think not, but neither is it scientific in terms of something arrived at through a scientific method. Here's an interesting discussion of its origins in a 18th century Persian poet, Hatef Esfehani, being quoted by Baha'u'lah. These guys seem to think of it as scripture, but at least one of them is the Baha'i heretic mentioned above.

http://bahaiforums.com/mysticism/850...e-obvious.html

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you said earlier that this Sen McGlinn guy was 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.' Do you have a reference for this claim? Or any of my other questions above?

I will have to hold on this one until I check it more. The references I find are not clear, and in some way conflicted.

[shunyadragon]

Do you believe revelation occurs apart from human theological reflection, without human activity?

There may be different ways to define The term ‘theological reflection,’ but I have always viewed it as human effort to meditate, contemplate or possibly consult on the Divine I consider it potentially a two way street. This article refers to 'faith formation.'

Source: http://www.sttaustin.org/documents/youth%20ministry/Theological_Reflection_Handbook_Section_R_Dickey.pdf

‘Theological reflection’ has come into prominence over the last thirty years in a variety of settings and serving a number of ends. It is used to denote a process in which an individual or small group reflects on their personal or collective experience(s) in light of their faith. The aim is not only to come to new understandings about the circumstances in which people live and the faith they profess, but to identify new ways of responding that validate their experience and give voice to their truth.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you said earlier that this Sen McGlinn guy was 'claiming to be an authority' over the authority of the elected Universal House of Justice as the interpreter of Baha'i scripture.' Do you have a reference for this claim? Or any of my other questions above?

I read over this discussion and found it interesting. Simply yes, I consider it 'Revelation.' It is often interpreted spiritually, and describing the physical relationship between energy and matter; E=mc2. A little background alluded to in the discussion was that the poet attributed may have been Baha'u'llah, and similar references occur elsewhere in his scripture. Also, the Baha'i Faith arose among Zoroastrian, Sufi, Islamic mystics and poets including the eighteen Letters of the Living (first apostles of the Bab), which included a women poet, Tahirah, and Baha'u'llah. Much of this poetry was destroyed by Islamic authorities and enemies of the Baha'i Faith, but some of the poetry is preserved in the writings of Baha'u'llah.

The dialogue also brought out another controversial theme in some of the writings, and that is the transmutation of the elements. Actually it is well known now that this occurs within stars, and it is how elements are formed, and in the writings it is stated that this may occur if 'conditions are right.' At present we are developing the technology to recreate the conditions within stars.

[Mr. Black]

...would some Christian (or other theist) care to tell me why I should believe that anyone has ever received any knowledge about God by divine revelation?

Doug, long time no see. :) It's been about a year or so, but I believe we had this conversation back then----before TheologyWeb disappeared & changed ownership. ;) If you don't remember what the reason was, here's a refresher. You should acknowledge God's divine revelation given to the biblical scribes because, when you deny the claims made in the Bible---and therefore the worldview articulated in it---you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, which means you wouldn't be able to make sense of your question.

Also, when you say "divine revelation" are you talking only special revelation in Scripture, or would you include general revelation in nature as well?

[Doug Shaver]

Hello, Mr. Black. I remembered the name as soon as I saw it, but didn't remember your being a presuppositionalist. I went several rounds with someone else here on that topic just a few weeks ago. It won't surprise you to learn that neither of us yielded an inch to the other. (Doesn't mean one of us didn't win, but I'm in no position to say who it was.)

The revelation I had in mind for the thread topic was special revelation. I was thinking particularly of scripture, but if someone wants to defend some other instance of it, I'd be fine with that.

[whag]

Doug, long time no see. :) It's been about a year or so, but I believe we had this conversation back then----before TheologyWeb disappeared & changed ownership. ;) If you don't remember what the reason was, here's a refresher. You should acknowledge God's divine revelation given to the biblical scribes because, when you deny the claims made in the Bible---and therefore the worldview articulated in it---you end up with a worldview that reduces to absurdity, which means you wouldn't be able to make sense of your question.

Also, when you say "divine revelation" are you talking only special revelation in Scripture, or would you include general revelation in nature as well?

There are many revealings in the bible, hence many claims. Ancient people passed down a story about the origin of languages and human population dispersion in the Babel myth. Would this be an example of special revelation? We can reject claims like that, right? Or do you mean specifically the Jesus revelation?

[Mr. Black]

Hello, Mr. Black. I remembered the name as soon as I saw it, but didn't remember your being a presuppositionalist. I went several rounds with someone else here on that topic just a few weeks ago. It won't surprise you to learn that neither of us yielded an inch to the other.

Yeah, God's Word predicts that sort of thing. No surprise there.
Any chance you'd be willing to post a link to the thread where you had that discussion?

The revelation I had in mind for the thread topic was special revelation. I was thinking particularly of scripture, but if someone wants to defend some other instance of it, I'd be fine with that.

I can (and am willing to) defend both. Special revelation (Scripture) entails general revelation after all. :)
If I can read through your discussion from a couple weeks ago that'd be great. If it turns out you're already are familiar with certain definitions of key terms and whatnot it would save me some time in having to lay that out. If there's a rule about posting links to other threads in the forums maybe you can send me the link in a private message, or tell me the name of the thread and what forum category I can find it in.

[Doug Shaver]

Any chance you'd be willing to post a link to the thread where you had that discussion? . . . .

My memory tricked me. It turns out I was thinking of a debate I had with seer. It was about a presupposition, but not about presuppositionalism.

If it turns out you're already are familiar with certain definitions of key terms and whatnot it would save me some time in having to lay that out.

I was mistaken about this particular occasion, but I have debated at least one presuppositionalist at some time or other, so I think I know the lingo. If I should be misremembering anything, though (a not improbable contingency), I shall welcome being corrected.

[Mr. Black]

My memory tricked me. It turns out I was thinking of a debate I had with seer. It was about a presupposition, but not about presuppositionalism.

Ah well, it happens. It happens to me more often than I'd like, actually. :P

I was mistaken about this particular occasion, but I have debated at least one presuppositionalist at some time or other, so I think I know the lingo. If I should be misremembering anything, though (a not improbable contingency), I shall welcome being corrected.

I remember that humility of yours from before. :) If I misunderstand you at any point, feel free to correct me as well. On to the proof then. I'll try to keep it short but informative.

All things are from, to, and through God (Romans 11:36). Romans 1:18-23 teaches that all men know God in their heart of hearts. Proverbs 1:7 says the fear of the Lord is the beginning (not the end result) of wisdom and knowledge. Similarly, Colossians 2:3 & 8, respectively, say that (1) "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are rooted in Christ, and that (2) if you have a philosophy of life that's rooted in the "elementary principles of the world" rather than a philosophy that's rooted "in Christ" you end up being robbed of those treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
In other words, God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of human experience. Since God is the metaphysical base which grounds the preconditions for the intelligibility of human experience (i.e., laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral absolutes, basic reliability of senses, memory, cognitive faculties, etc), and His revelation of Himself to mankind (both general and special) is the epistemology which makes that metaphysical base known, if He did not exist and reveal Himself to mankind, man could not exist, let alone have knowledge of anything, to any degree at all. So if we don't start with Him at the base of our reasoning (see note on this below for clarification) we can't justify anything we claim to know. So the "proof" of divine revelation (both general in nature and special in Scripture=the Bible) is that if it were not already given to us, and you did not already know God in your heart of hearts, as Romans 1 says, you couldn't know, much less prove, anything.

So here's my question for you, Doug. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

[P.S. Just for clarification, when I say that we have to "start with God at the base of our reasoning" I'm not talking about temporal starting point, but rather logical starting point. I'm saying that in order to have a basis for knowing, and therefore for proving, anything at all, God's existence and revelation to man---and especially His claims made in His written Word---are to be granted a place of logical preeminence in our thinking. They're to be held as logically primary in all our reasoning.]

[Doug Shaver]

So here's my question for you, Doug. Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

Oh, that rings a bell. A very loud bell. No wonder your name was familiar. We've done this one before.

But that's OK. There must be some folks here who weren't around for our first engagement.

To answer your question . . . . I could be wrong about anything that I think I know, and it's practically certain that I'm wrong about some things. But the probability that I'm wrong about everything is effectively zero.

And, to anticipate some examples that you'll be wanting to throw at me, there are certain propositions of which the negations are meaningless, and it therefore makes no sense to ask whether I could be wrong in believing them.