Divine revelation

[Doug Shaver]

I'm sure if someone pushed hard enough that your belief in atheism could eventually be reduced to "Because I say so." Would you concede that atheism is also an indefensible worldview?

If you think you can do that, start a new thread and go for it. One of two things will happen. Either I will admit that atheism is indefensible, or else you will have proved, with all these other people watching, that I'm a total hypocrite.

So you thought you knew everything there was to know about Christianity and theism, and that if you didn't know an answer it's only because the answer didn't exist?

I was summarizing a very long story. To tell the whole story, I'd have to write a whole book. I do have a Cliff Note version on my website for anyone who cares to learn a little more: http://dougshaver.net/autobio/mystory/story00.htm.

The "Christian beliefs" I was referring to were those of the evangelical sect to which I then belonged. At the root of those beliefs was the dogma of scriptural inerrancy. My friends convinced me that that dogma was indefensible, and without it, I could not defend any doctrine that was unique to evangelical Christianity. But my friends were not atheists. They were liberal Christians. When I said I was trying to lead them to Christ, I meant that I was trying to convince them that their beliefs about Christ were in error. But my beliefs presupposed scriptural inerrantism, and when I had to abandon that presupposition, I perceived that their beliefs were more reasonable. So I then became, not an atheist, but a liberal Christian. I took me several more years to discover that I could not defend any kind of theistic belief.

At no time during any of this did I suppose that I had learned everything there was to know about the issues I was dealing with. But neither did I have access to anybody who had. What I had done was make the best use I could of the resources available to me at the time, and this all happened many years before there was a World Wide Web. The knowledge available to me was paltry, but it was all I had. None of us can sensibly base his beliefs on facts of which he is unaware.

But if those facts are out there, we can keep our minds open enough to use them when they come to our attention, and I believe I have done that. On every occasion when I have changed my thinking about the Bible, or Jesus, or God, I accepted the possibility that I was making a mistake and would someday have to change my mind back. But on these particular issues, every new fact I have learned over the years has been either confirmatory or irrelevant. Nothing I have learned since that day when I stopped believing in scriptural inerrancy has given me any new reason to suspect that the Bible actually is inerrant. Nothing I have learned since the day I stopped believing in God has given me any new reason to suspect that he might actually exist.

[shunyadragon]

Ok. It's close enough to the apostles and the first Christians.

They are still records outside the gospels. They are 1st and 2nd century records. Ancient historians does not required written records during the time the events themselves occurred.

No, after 75 AD, likely second century is not close enough for what you claimed. These records by ancient historians, like Josephus, are decidedly third hand and report the testimony of Christians. Absolutely nothing exists before 75 AD as far as the gospels are concerned.

That presupposed like not allowing Christ to predict the destruction of the temple.

Your neglecting the fact that there are not any gospel texts found that existed prior to 75 AD

There is also archeological evidences that dated to the time of first century Nazareth.

So what?!?!?!. There are no records of Jesus of Nazareth. By the way the archeological records for Nazareth include radiometric dating. Your statements concerning questioning radiometric dating are unfounded.

I'm referring to Mount Vesuvius. The volcano was a huge tragedy in Rome and only recorded by one commentator.. in an off-the-cuff remark long after it happened. That's because in the ancient world literacy rate was low. Radiometric dating has built-in assumptions that has been showned to be false and inaccurate.

The record we have is a detailed report by a first hand witness of the account of the eruption correlated very accurately by several radiometric dating methods which give the date the historical record provides, and archeological finds such as coins. Radiometric dating has also been often used to show some of the Biblical archeological references to events are accurate.

Yes, Nazareth.

So what?!?!? There is no record of Jesus of Nazareth.

Let's back up to your original claim here:

To me if something is divinely inspired means that no known natural explanation can account for it. The explanation must be supernatural.

There are indeed possible natural explanations of reported miraculous events throughout history including the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This does not mean the Resurrection is false, but as cited there is a distinct and absolute lack of reliable records prior to 75 AD, and many parallels to other famous people where supernatural claims about their life were attributed to them in historical records after their death.

[shunyadragon]

What do you think of this opinion?

http://uhj.net/women-on-uhj.html

Is it good theological reflection or a valid interpretation of the Baha'i Holy Scriptures, faith and practice? Does it change your mind about whether or not women can serve on the Universal House of Justice without the need for a new Revelation?

Well, yes. I was unfamiliar with this document, and the interpretation of the word 'rajul.' Apparently women may be elected to the Universal House of Justice. The reasoning as to whether or not I believe in the Baha'i Faith does not rest on my expectations of meaning and interpretation of individual Laws and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. This would constitute a rational justification of belief in terms of what is comfortable with me.

My reasons for believing go deeper then this.

[robrecht]

Well, yes. I was unfamiliar with this document, and the interpretation of the word 'rajul.' Apparently women may be elected to the Universal House of Justice. The reasoning as to whether or not I believe in the Baha'i Faith does not rest on my expectations of meaning and interpretation of individual Laws and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. This would constitute a rational justification of belief in terms of what is comfortable with me.

My reasons for believing go deeper then this.

So good theological reflection (or whatever you want to call it) once again trumps the need for a new revelation.

[shunyadragon]

So good theological reflection (or whatever you want to call it) once again trumps the need for a new revelation.

No. In this case the text of the Revelation is what makes the determination.

The purpose of Theological Reflection is personal reflection, meditation and contemplation to deepen and enrich one's personal spiritual journey, and does not trump anything.

[robrecht]

No.

How so? Previously you thought such a position could not be arrived at without the need for a new revelation. Now you realize that such a position is indeed possible without a new revelation. Right?

[shunyadragon]

How so? Previously you thought such a position could not be arrived at without the need for a new revelation. Now you realize that such a position is indeed possible without a new revelation. Right?

Wrong! I was mistaken. No change in the Revelation. It remains the text of the Revelation that makes the determination.

[robrecht]

Wrong! I was mistaken. No change in the Revelation. It remains the text of the Revelation that makes the determination.

I know you were mistaken, and I am not arguing that there was a change in the revelation (quite the opposite). But what you previously believed was revealed truth, you now no longer believe to be revealed truth, and in fact you now believe that the opposite is revealed truth. What do you call that process whereby you came to radically change your view of revealed truth?

[shunyadragon]

I know you were mistaken, and I am not arguing that there was a change in the revelation (quite the opposite). But what you previously believed was revealed truth, you now no longer believe to be revealed truth, and in fact you now believe that the opposite is revealed truth. What do you call that process whereby you came to radically change your view of revealed truth?

This was simply an error on my part, nothing else. Revealed truth did not change.

[robrecht]

This was simply an error on my part, nothing else. Revealed truth did not change.

Once again, Shuny, I am aware of your error and I am not claiming that revelation has changed. In fact, I certainly do not believe that it has. Quite the contrary. None of this is what I asked you. Are you trying to ignore my questions? If not, maybe you could take another look and try to answer what I have asked you.

[shunyadragon]

Once again, Shuny, I am aware of your error and I am not claiming that revelation has changed. In fact, I certainly do not believe that it has. Quite the contrary. None of this is what I asked you. Are you trying to ignore my questions? If not, maybe you could take another look and try to answer what I have asked you.

I believe I have answered your questions. See the following.

Well, yes. I was unfamiliar with this document, and the interpretation of the word 'rajul.' Apparently women may be elected to the Universal House of Justice. The reasoning as to whether or not I believe in the Baha'i Faith does not rest on my expectations of meaning and interpretation of individual Laws and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. This would constitute a rational justification of belief in terms of what is comfortable with me.

My reasons for believing go deeper then this.

So good theological reflection (or whatever you want to call it) once again trumps the need for a new revelation.

No. In this case the text of the Revelation is what makes the determination.

The purpose of Theological Reflection is personal reflection, meditation and contemplation to deepen and enrich one's personal spiritual journey, and does not trump anything.

Note: I do use Theological Reflection my whole adult life in many forms, but my use is definitely my own personal journey to contemplate, and meditate on my beliefs, choices, changes, and their meaning from my journey from the Roman Church, agnosticism, Buddhism to Baha'i on to whatever. Part of my purpose is to understand religion and belief, not to change reform or trump claims of Revelation. Example: I spent many years studying and reflecting on the Roman Church, and it's spiritual nature. My goal was inward to understand, and my conclusion was the Roman Church was not Catholic or 'Universal' as it claims. This is an ongoing process which includes my study and reflection of ALL religions and beliefs.

What questions have I not answered?

[robrecht]

I believe I have answered your questions. See the following.

Below you have started to answer my questions, "What do you think of this opinion? Is it good theological reflection?” So far your answer seems to be that it is not really a matter of opinion, let alone good theological reflection or interpretation. Rather it is simply Revelation, as revealed in a text, with a minimal role attributed to the lexical interpretation of one word in the text and seemingly no interpretation of Baha’i practice and sexism. We already learned above that this dogmatic pronouncement does indeed change your mind about whether or not women can serve in the Universal House of Justice, but this seems to be merely a matter of acceding to an authoritative statement and not much appreciation of the need for theological reflection or interpretation either by the authors of the document or by those who are subject to accept the decisions of this authoritative body, not to mention those who certainly did not agree prior to this statement in 1996.

Well, yes. I was unfamiliar with this document, and the interpretation of the word 'rajul.' Apparently women may be elected to the Universal House of Justice.

Note that this document itself was quite honest about how this has been a matter of controversial interpretation and practice and the cultural limitations of sexism among the Baha’i faithful and leadership.

The reasoning as to whether or not I believe in the Baha'i Faith does not rest on my expectations of meaning and interpretation of individual Laws and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith. This would constitute a rational justification of belief in terms of what is comfortable with me.

My reasons for believing go deeper then this.

Since I am not questioning why you hold to the Baha'i faith, this seems irrelevant to our discussion.

No. In this case the text of the Revelation is what makes the determination.

Exactly which revelatory text are you referring to here? The 1996 clarification by the Universal House of Justice or an earlier statement? If the latter, exactly which earlier statement by whom?

The purpose of Theological Reflection is personal reflection, meditation and contemplation to deepen and enrich one's personal spiritual journey, and does not trump anything.

Note: I do use Theological Reflection my whole adult life in many forms, but my use is definitely my own personal journey to contemplate, and meditate on my beliefs, choices, changes, and their meaning from my journey from the Roman Church, agnosticism, Buddhism to Baha'i on to whatever. Part of my purpose is to understand religion and belief, not to change reform or trump claims of Revelation. Example: I spent many years studying and reflecting on the Roman Church, and it's spiritual nature. My goal was inward to understand, and my conclusion was the Roman Church was not Catholic or 'Universal' as it claims. This is an ongoing process which includes my study and reflection of ALL religions and beliefs.

So would you say that your own personal theological reflection led you to reject some revelatory claims and accept others?

What questions have I not answered?

You are now in the process of answering some of my questions.

[shunyadragon]

Below you have started to answer my questions, "What do you think of this opinion? Is it good theological reflection?” So far your answer seems to be that it is not really a matter of opinion, let alone good theological reflection or interpretation. Rather it is simply Revelation, as revealed in a text, with a minimal role attributed to the lexical interpretation of one word in the text and seemingly no interpretation of Baha’i practice and sexism. We already learned above that this dogmatic pronouncement does indeed change your mind about whether or not women can serve in the Universal House of Justice, but this seems to be merely a matter of acceding to an authoritative statement and not much appreciation of the need for theological reflection or interpretation either by the authors of the document or by those who are subject to accept the decisions of this authoritative body, not to mention those who certainly did not agree prior to this statement in 1996.

I do not believe that process of the Universal House of Justice is Theological reflection in this case. It is more a scholarly process in studying the Arabic and Persian to come up with the best translation and understanding of Revelation.

Note that this document itself was quite honest about how this has been a matter of controversial interpretation and practice and the cultural limitations of sexism among the Baha’i faithful and leadership.

Personally I do not consider either interpretation necessarily controversial, nor an issue of sexism. I do not have a personal expectations nor projections as to what should be specifically Revelation or not. Even without this issue the literal laws and beliefs of the Baha'i Faith are far more toward the equality of men and women in society then any other religion. I do look at the evolution of the spiritual nature of humanity as more advanced in the Baha'i Revelation then others reflecting a more universal vision then reflected in other religions. From the secular perspective I consider the Unitarian Universalist belief to be undergoing a similar parallel evolution, reflecting a dynamic changing world over time that includes the rolw of previous Revelations.

Exactly which revelatory text are you referring to here? The 1996 clarification by the Universal House of Justice or an earlier statement? If the latter, exactly which earlier statement by whom?

I believe it is the text of the Katab-i-aqdas (Book of Laws) by Baha'u'llah. I may check further. The Baha'i Faith is young and the translation and understanding of the sacred writings is not something that happens all at once. The question is the correct translation and therefore the correct understanding of scripture, and not a question of changing the Revelation.

So would you say that your own personal theological reflection led you to reject some revelatory claims and accept others?

Actually my process of theological reflection does not answer the specific questions of what is Revelation and what is not, nor my desire to reform or change a religion from within. That actually is a process of human pick and chose, or which shoes fit, which I avoid when considering what is Revelation. Once I accept a belief system I accept what that religion teaches as Revelation, even though at some future time my choice may change. I have investigated many beliefs and their variations from the Roman Church, Buddhism, LDS, Course of Miracles, Jehovah Witnesses, Judaism, Islam, Vedic traditions, and the numerous variations of the above, in a process of Theological Reflection and as much an independent investigation as possible as to what best represents the Universal. This remains an open question and everything is in pencil. The more mystical side of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Vedic traditions, Taoism, and Buddhism reflect aspects of the universal.

[robrecht]

I do not believe that process of the Universal House of Justice is Theological reflection in this case. It is more a scholarly process in studying the Arabic and Persian to come up with the best translation and understanding of Revelation.

Please note that I said "good theological reflection or interpretation." Can you explain why you do not believe that, in preparing this document, the Universal House did not engage in good theological reflection or interpretation?

Personally I do not consider either interpretation necessarily controversial, nor an issue of sexism.

Are you in disagreement with the Universal House of Justice about this?

I believe it is the text of the Katab-i-akdas (Book of Laws) by Baha'u'llah. I may check further.

Please let me know if and when you find the revelatory text in question.

The Baha'i Faith is young and the translation and understanding of the sacred writings is not something that happens all at once. The question is the correct translation and therefore the correct understanding of scripture, and not a question of changing the Revelation.

Yet again, I am not speaking of a change in revelation. This is entire beside the point as far as I am concerned.

[shunyadragon]

Please note that I said "good theological reflection or interpretation." Can you explain why you do not believe that, in preparing this document, the Universal House did not engage in good theological reflection or interpretation?

Not the way I have defined 'Theological Reflection' in previous posts from my sources. 'Theological Reflection' remains a person process of reflection, meditation, and contemplation to find spiritual meaning within the context of Revelation. The process the UHJ goes through here is more on the lines of Consultation and the Independent Investigation of truth, and linguistic academics to flush out the best translation and understanding of the scripture.

Since the Baha'i Faith has an elected hierarchy of administrative order of bodies of nine believers. Those voting are urged to use Theological Reflection and prayer to make their vote more spiritually meaningful.

Are you in disagreement with the Universal House of Justice about this?

No, I accept it. I will do a bit more research on my part to understand it better.

Please let me know if and when you find the revelatory text in question.

OK. I may have to check online or at the Library of the Baha'i Center.