Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Divine revelation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    I don't know, It is subject to further investigation on my part. I guess I was correct when the discussion started.
    The Davidic website seemed pretty suspect to me. Seems like a differeng theological interpretation than yours. Have you now accepted that 'your' restrictive usage of 'theological reflection' is not the only one?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      The Davidic website seemed pretty suspect to me.
      That is weird. There are two websites that declare that they're the "Official Website of the Universal House of Justice". One is at http://uhj.net/, which you previously linked to, and the other is at http://universalhouseofjustice.bahai.org/. The second one looks a lot more professional. According to this link: http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5356 they say the first website is a fake, that puts out misinformation. Wonder what the story is behind that. Is it a splinter group, or some group antagonistic to the other?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        That is weird. There are two websites that declare that they're the "Official Website of the Universal House of Justice". One is at http://uhj.net/, which you previously linked to, and the other is at http://universalhouseofjustice.bahai.org/. The second one looks a lot more professional. According to this link: http://bahai-library.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5356 they say the first website is a fake, that puts out misinformation. Wonder what the story is behind that. Is it a splinter group, or some group antagonistic to the other?
        Yes. This is one of the problems with a premodern literalist and magical approach to propositional revelation that refuses to recognize valid theological reflection and interpretation.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • What happens if the fake Universal House of Justice, allowing women to be members, is thus actually more universal than the real Universal House of Justice? Thank God I'm a nominalist!
          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

          Comment


          • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
            Then explain what you mean. I asked: "How is it relevant? Unless you believe that your definition of theological reflection also applies to 'theological interpretation'? Is that the case?" You responded, "Only at the personal level." What do you mean by 'your definition of theological reflection also applies to theological interpretation only at the personal level'?
            Just as I said and your sources agree with me.

            It need not be like quicksand. [/quote]

            Your communication has been problematic and confusing.

            Then, again, please explain what you mean, by 'your definition of theological reflection also applies to theological interpretation only at the personal level'?
            I have done this many times, by definition cited. I need not have to do it again.

            And this is relevant to our conversation how exactly? Do you imagine that I have said theological reflection is only equivalent to interpretation beyond the personal level?
            It is relevant. No I did not claim you said this. As per the references you cited, none refer to Theological Reflection as a process of change, evolving nor the formation of the foundation Doctrine, Dogma and Revelation of traditional Christianity.


            is not my own personal meaning. But, even if it were, I have asked you to use your own words to describe the phenomena I have pointed to. Instead of trying to communicate about these phenomena with your own words, you prefer to critque my words, and try to claim that I am using my words in some sort of unusual way. So don't use my words. Use your own words.
            I did not use my words. I referred to reliable academic sources. I agree with the sources I cited.

            Not necessarily, but in this case I have told you explicitly many times that my use of these two words is in no way unusual.

            But since you refuse to accept my repeated statement that my use of these two words are not different than how they are commonly defined, just for fun, I googled ‘theological reflection’ for you. The first hit was the definition you provided. The other definitions I have cited below are all from the second Google hit:

            http://divinity.vanderbilt.edu/acade...reflection.php

            As expected, they demonstrate a variety and range of ways of understanding this phrase. While some might want to apply certain limitations, not necessarily all of your limitations, others use the phrase the same as I do. The first is your definition:
            What Is Theological Reflection?
            A Guide from the Rev. Dr. Richard Dickey, 6/2006
            http://www.ants.edu/pdf/Theological_...n_R_Dickey.pdf

            "... Current understandings of theological reflection are characterized by their focus on life experiences rather than on a doctrine, belief or practice. ..."

            So, by this 'defintion', perhaps my usage is old fashioned in his opinion. I can live with that. I do not know Reverend Dickey and cannot account for his motives in why he might not want me or others to reflect theologically upon doctrines, beliefs, or practice. Perhaps he does not want to open up a can of worms. I did know Avery Cardinal Dulles, and he was also reluctant to have lay people reflecting upon doctrine, but despite his doctrinal conservatism, he certainly did encourage theological reflection upon much more than mere personal life experience and he was quite willing to speak of ‘continuing revelation’:

            Avery Cardinal Dulles:
            The subject matter on which theological reflection focuses is not the doctrinal themes of traditional theology (like, Trinity, Christology, church and sacraments), but great human problems of the day as, for instance, war, oppression, poverty, pollution, and the breakdown of human community on various levels. The assumption here is that Revelation is to be found not so much in clear directives from the past as in the dimension of ultimacy within our own experience. God's revelation to our predecessors afford paradigms or guidelines for the present; they serve to suggest and open up the depth-dimensions in the experience of the believer today. In this sense, one may speak of 'continuing revelation'.

            Others speak of theological reflection without prohibiting the subject matter:

            Roberta Bondi:
            For me, theological reflection is a three-way conversation among our ancestors in the church, my everyday experience and God. The conversation calls me to bring the whole of who I am - intellect and emotion, memory and hope, action and contemplation, wounds and prayer - in order that I may live out our common calling to love God and neighbor.

            Henri Nouwen:
            Few ministers and priests think theologically. Most of them have been educated in a climate in which the behavioral sciences, such as psychology and sociology, so dominated the educational milieu that little true theology was being learned. Most Christian leaders today raise psychological and sociological questions even though they frame them in scriptural terms. Real theological thinking ... is hard to find in the practice of ministry. Without solid theological reflection, future leaders will be little more than pseudo-psychologists, pseudo-sociologists, pseudo-social workers. They will think of themselves as enablers, facilitators, role models, father or mother figures, big brothers or big sisters, and so on, and thus join the countless men and women who make a living by trying to help their fellow human beings to cope with the stresses and strains of everyday living. But that has little to do with Christian leadership because the Christian leader thinks, speaks and acts in the name of Jesus, who came to free humanity from the power of death and open the way to eternal life. To be such a leader it is essential to be able to discern from moment to moment how God acts in human history and how the personal, communal, national and international events that occur during our lives can make us more and more sensitive to the ways in which we are led to the cross and through the cross to the resurrection...

            James D. Whitehead and Evelyn Eaton Whitehead:
            In every age the community of faith must discover the shape of its ministry. We must discern how we are to be faithful to the gospel and effective in our mission: to celebrate God's saving presence and to contribute, by word and action and sacrament, to the fullness of this presence - the coming of the Kingdom. Theological reflection is an essential tool in this discernment of contemporary ministry. … Theological reflection in ministry involves three sources of religiously relevant information – Christian Tradition, the experience of the community of faith, and the resources of the culture.

            Howard W. Stone and James O. Duke:
            Serious thinking about the meaning of Christian faith can and does take place anywhere, It goes on while conversing, worshiping, weathering a life crisis, keeping up with the latest news, working, taking some time out for recreation. Wherever and whenever it occurs, theological reflection is not only a personal but also an interactive, dialogical and community-related process. The voices of others are heard. Some of these voices, like those of the biblical writers, come from texts of centuries past. Others are those of our contemporaries. Still others are our own. These voices offer us food for thought to be heeded or debated or improved upon or set aside as unhelpful. To engage in theological reflection is to join an ongoing conversation with others that began long before we ever came along and will continue long after we have passed away.

            Patricia O'Connell Killen and John de Beer:
            Theological reflection is the discipline of exploring individual and corporate experience in conversation with the wisdom of a religious heritage. The conversation is a genuine dialogue that seeks to hear from our own beliefs, actions, and perspectives, as well as those of the tradition. It respects the integrity of both. Theological reflection therefore may confirm, challenge, clarify, and expand how we understand our own experience and how we understand the religious tradition. The outcome is new truth and meaning for living.
            It is NOT my misunderstanding. I find the above for the most part to be in line with my definitions as cited. Some refer to a continuing revelation, but not trumping or changing or altering existing 'Doctrine, Dogma, or Revelation. They all refer to individual personal or possibly group small group level relating their lives and community to the existing Doctrine, Dogma and Revelation of traditional Christianity, which DOES NOT CHANGE.

            Contrary to your misunderstanding of my view of theological reflection, I do not deny the personal experiential dimension nor do I say that its purpose is new revelation, but I do note in multiple examples in the history of the Christian churches where it has contributed to the development or definition of dogmas by popes and councils as well as the denial of previously held doctrines in large, not merely small, groups or denominations. You may not want to call these examples ‘theological reflection’, which is fine with me, I am not trying to insist upon any particular definition, or my own phrasing, but you should at least be able to tell me what words you would use to describe these concrete phenomenon, something which you have up until now refused to do. You may wish to deny that continuing revelation or doctrinal development, or whatever you want to call it, is allowed in the Baha’i tradition for your spiritual truths or spiritual laws, and that’s fine too, as far as I’m concerned, but it would be pretty foolish for you to deny the facts of history in the Christian church, in which doctrinal understanding has indeed evolved, new dogmas have been defined, older doctrines have been abandoned by some. It is just the way it is. Whether you call it ‘theological reflection’ or ‘theological interpretation’ or ‘continuing revelation’ or something else entirely is irrelevant to me.
            Contrary to my misunderstanding???? as referenced on the above references the problem is yours.

            None of the above references, nor the underlined refer to Theological Reflection' as evolving, changing, nor development of the fundamental Doctrine, Dogma, nor Revelation that represents the foundation of Christianity, which does not change over time. Your references only reinforce my original references and view. You refer to 'doctrinal understanding,' but the fact is in 'Theological Reflection' this remains on the personal or small group level and not an evolving, changing nor development of Doctrine, Dogma nor Revelation.

            The only change I see in evolving foundation of Doctrine, Dogma and Revelation occurred in the first 200 to 400 years of Christian history and the radical separation of some churches, such as LDS, and JW.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-07-2014, 11:31 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Just as I said and your sources agree with me.

              Your communication has been problematic and confusing.
              I am very sorry you are so confused but I cannot take responsibility for your confusion here.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I have done this many times, by definition cited. I need not have to do it again.
              It's up to you, depending on whether or not you want to be understood or not.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              I did not use my words. I referred to reliable academic sources. I agree with the sources I cited.
              You did not like my choice of words so I asked you to use your own. You cited a definition of a phrase, and you have said that it does not apply to the examples that I have given you, but you have thus far refused to describe the examples I gave you with your own words.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              It is NOT my misunderstanding. I find the above for the most part to be in line with my definitions as cited. Some refer to a continuing revelation, but not trumping or changing or altering existing 'Doctrine, Dogma, or Revelation. They all refer to individual personal or possible possibly group small group level.
              Please account for the examples and phenomena I have described for you in your own words. If you do not like my words, use your own.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Contrary to my misunderstanding???? as referenced on the above references the problem is yours.
              What exactly do you think is my problem?

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              None of the above reference to Theological Reflection' refer to an evolving, changing, nor development of the fundamental Doctrine, Dogma, nor Revelation that represents the foundation of Christianity, which does not change over time. Your references only reinforce my original references and view. You refer to 'doctrinal understanding,' but the fact is in 'Theological Reflection' this remains on the personal or small group level and not an evolving, changing nor development of Doctrine, Dogma nor Revelation.
              Again, if you do not want to use my words, please use your own.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              The only change I see in evolving foundation of Doctrine, Dogma and Revelation occurred in the first 200 to 400 years of Christian history and the radical separation of some churches, such as LDS, and JW.
              I have given you several examples, all of which you have ignored up to now:
              1. The theological schools of Antioch and Alexandria and the development and defintion of the doctrines and dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity
              2. The theological traditions of the Lutheran, Calvinist, and other Protestant churches which rejected various doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and developed their own theological traditions and doctrines
              3. The Franciscan school of theology and the development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of Papal Infabilitiy
              4. The Franciscan school of theolgoy and the development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of the Immaculate Conception
              5. The development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of the Assumption of Mary
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • Originally posted by robrecht View Post

                Please account for the examples and phenomena I have described for you in your own words. If you do not like my words, use your own.

                What exactly do you think is my problem?
                On my part none. You continue to describe Theological Reflection in your own personal way, which is a problem.

                Again, if you do not want to use my words, please use your own.
                Done that several times.

                I have given you several examples, all of which you have ignored up to now:
                Did not give valid examples that I could ignore.

                1. The theological schools of Antioch and Alexandria and the development and defintion of the doctrines and dogmas of the Incarnation and the Trinity
                2. The theological traditions of the Lutheran, Calvinist, and other Protestant churches which rejected various doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and developed their own theological traditions and doctrines
                3. The Franciscan school of theology and the development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of Papal Infabilitiy
                4. The Franciscan school of theolgoy and the development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of the Immaculate Conception
                5. The development and defintion of the doctrine and dogma of the Assumption of Mary
                Absolutely none of the examples in the previous post described Theological Reflection as being applied to the above examples. Your previous examples represented 'Theological Reflection' as experienced in today's world.

                As referred previous all this occurred in the early history of Christianity, and as far as the Roman Church goes. no change since that time.
                Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-07-2014, 12:16 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  On my part none. You continue to describe Theological Reflection in your own personal way, which is a problem.

                  Done that several times.

                  Did not give valid examples that I could ignore.

                  Absolutely none of the examples in the previous post described Theological Reflection as being applied to the above examples.

                  As referred previous all this occurred in the early history of Christianity, and as far as the Roman Church goes. no change since that time.
                  You are mistaken. As I've already pointed out the various Protestant theological traditions began to crystalize and diverge (somewhat) in the 16th century, whereas the Roman Catholic dogmas of the Papal Infabilitiy, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary were not defined until the 19th and 20th centuries. If you want to describe these theological schools, traditions, and doctrinal developments without making reference to the words, 'theological reflection', you have been invited countless times to do so. Use whatever terms you would like.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    You are mistaken. As I've already pointed out the various Protestant theological traditions began to crystalize and diverge (somewhat) in the 16th century, whereas the Roman Catholic dogmas of the Papal Infabilitiy, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary were not defined until the 19th and 20th centuries. If you want to describe these theological schools, traditions, and doctrinal developments without making reference to the words, 'theological reflection', you have been invited countless times to do so. Use whatever terms you would like.
                    Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'
                    Reflection
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'
                      Reflection
                      Completely irrelevant. Refer to them however you wish.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • But, if you want an example of the use of 'theological reflection' used in the context of a discussion of potential doctrinal development regarding leadership roles of women in the church, which is comparable to the topic at hand regarding leadership roles of women within the Baha'i traditions, see here (1st Google hit):
                        "Neither the practice and discipline of Christian life (liturgy and prayer as well as ethics and asceticism) nor the process of doctrinal formulation (whether the result of theological reflection on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ or as the legitimation of disciplinary developments) arose in a vacuum. ... Institutional change, in the Church as in other human societies, occurs in three major stages: innovation, articulation, and adoption. Pastoral practice is already undergoing considerable innovation as women share in many forms of ministry; the continued evolution of practice will in time make an argument of fittingness work in the direction of ordination of women to the priesthood. Theological reflection on the ordination of women is only now beginning to mature; a new level of discourse, beyond the old arguments and the appeal to authority, must evolve before the process of articulation can be completed. The time for magisterial decision is not yet, and even the Declaration is not a final pronouncement on the question; adoption will come as the Church learns to live toward the future."

                        http://www.womenpriests.org/classic/cardman.asp
                        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                          Completely irrelevant. Refer to them however you wish.
                          Very relevant! The discussion at hand is 'What is Theological Refection' and not 'whatever you wish to call them.'

                          Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'

                          It still remains the basic Doctrines and Dogma of Christianity remain fixed at ~400 AD based on the scripture, and none of your references remotely refers to 'Theological Reflection' as changing anything here.

                          If you want to discuss how the Roman Church and other churches describe the changes and/or reasons they changed or added to Doctrine Dogma and Revelation and formed new churches I a willing to discuss that.

                          Hint, many of these changes as in the new churches like LDS an JW, they claim that new 'Revelation' was received from God.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-07-2014, 12:48 PM.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            The discussion at hand is 'What is Theological Refection' and not 'whatever you wish to call them.'

                            Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'
                            Reflection.

                            It still remains the basic Doctrines and Dogma of Christianity remain fixed at ~400 AD based on the scripture, and none of your references remotely refers to 'Theological Reflection' as changing anything here.

                            If you want to discuss how the Roman Church and other churches describe the changes and/or reasons they changed or added to Doctrine Dogma and Revelation and formed new churches I a willing to discuss that.

                            Hint, many of these changes as in the new churches like LDS an JW, the claim that new 'Revelation' was received from God.
                            No, your crititique of my use of the terms theological reflection is a red herring, which you have used to avoid the discussion of what constitutes Revelation in your understanding of your Baha'i faith. I compared Baha'i positions regarding slavery and the role of women in society as comparable to developments within other religions, eg, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc, that came to these positions without the need for a new revelation. Whether we describe these developments within these other religions as the result, in part, of theological reflection or if we use other terms is completely irrelevant. We come to these positions without the need for a new revelation to replace an older revelation. You initially thought that the Baha'i would not be able to allow women to serve in a leadership role in the Universal House of Justice without a new revelation, then you were persuaded that it was already revealed that they could, then you thought that the more recent position of the Universal House of Justice is that they cannot, and now you are researching this to find out what the authentic revelation is. Meanwhile, some Roman Catholics are considering the question of the ordinationin of women in relation to ongoing theological reflection, while others consider it a matter of revelation that women cannot be ordained.
                            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                              No, your crititique of my use of the terms theological reflection is a red herring, which you have used to avoid the discussion of what constitutes Revelation in your understanding of your Baha'i faith. I compared Baha'i positions regarding slavery and the role of women in society as comparable to developments within other religions, eg, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc, that came to these positions without the need for a new revelation. Whether we describe these developments within these other religions as the result, in part, of theological reflection or if we use other terms is completely irrelevant. We come to these positions without the need for a new revelation to replace an older revelation. You initially thought that the Baha'i would not be able to allow women to serve in a leadership role in the Universal House of Justice without a new revelation, then you were persuaded that it was already revealed that they could, then you thought that the more recent position of the Universal House of Justice is that they cannot, and now you are researching this to find out what the authentic revelation is. Meanwhile, some Roman Catholics are considering the question of the ordinationin of women in relation to ongoing theological reflection, while others consider it a matter of revelation that women cannot be ordained.
                              Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking on your part concerning change in the Roman Church.

                              Again, The discussion at hand is 'What is Theological Refection' and not 'whatever you wish to call them.'

                              Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'
                              Reflection.

                              It still remains the basic Doctrines and Dogma of Christianity remain fixed at ~400 AD based on the scripture, and none of your references remotely refers to 'Theological Reflection' as changing anything here.

                              If you want to discuss how the Roman Church and other churches describe the changes and/or reasons they changed or added to Doctrine Dogma and Revelation and formed new churches I a willing to discuss that.

                              Hint, many of these changes as in the new churches like LDS an JW, the claim that new 'Revelation' was received from God.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking on your part concerning change in the Roman Church.
                                None at all. Just trying to teach you how theologians use theological language; so sad that you cannot aknowledge that and instead try to deflect attention away from this most pertinent example by randomly changing the subject to supposed wishful thinking.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Again, The discussion at hand is 'What is Theological Refection' and not 'whatever you wish to call them.'
                                No, that was just another of your diversions from the subject at hand. The thread is called "Revelation" and I have been questioning you about your unsubstantiated and admittedly vague claims of Baha'i revelation, most recently revelation about the leadership role of women in the Baha'i tradition. Why are you so reluctant to discuss Baha'i revelation? But, even when I, in an abundance of patience, give you a perfectly parallel use of 'theological reflection' you try to deflect attention away from it. Why run from the truth, Shuny?

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Again, your references did not refer to these developments as products of 'Theological Reflection.'
                                Reflection.
                                So what? My references were only meant to show you that your preferred defintion of 'theological reflection' (Google hit #1) was unnecessarily limited and not shared by other theologians. We do not only use the term for reflecting upon personal experience of individuals or small groups. We don't deny that it can be used in this limited sense, but it is also used in much broader contexts, eg, as the defintions I provided show, 'in dialogue with God's revelation to our ancestors in the tradition of the church, and with reference to the great human problems of the day as, for instance, war, oppression, poverty, pollution, and the breakdown of human community on various levels'. Thus, competent theologians do not need to receive a new Baha'i Revelation in order to oppse war, slavery, and the oppression of women. This view of theological reflection does not 'assume that revelation is to be found only in clear directives and literal propositions from the past' but is open to 'continuing revelation', and the 'resources of modern culture, not just to individuals or small groups but also in 'the whole community of faith, in an interactive, dialogical and community-related process', with reference to 'communal, national and international events; think, eg, of the need for deep theological reflection by Christians of the 20th century upon catastrophic events of our time such as the Holocaust. Such theological reflection listens both to 'the ancient voices of the biblical writers of texts of centuries past as well as to the voices of our contemporaries' in 'an ongoing conversation that began long before we ever came along and will continue long after we have passed away', engaging 'our corporate experience of the wisdom of our religious heritage and tradition' in a communal dialogue with the modern world, always open to 'new truth'. And while some conservative theologians may not want us to reflect theologically upon 'doctrines of traditional theology, eg, the Trinity, Christology, church and sacraments', guess what, we do it anyway. Thus, the Protestant schools of theology of the 16th century can re-examine the communal experience of sacraments and reject some as unworthy of the gospel or the Roman Catholic Church of the 20th century can abandon long held but detestable views of Jewish corporate responsibility for deicide.

                                I'm sorry if you do not recognize the obvious implications of this more comprehensive view of theological reflection. Thus, rather than grasp the obvious, you complain that my definitions did not specifically mention the developments of doctrine that I had given you as examples. You do realize there is a difference between defintions and examlples, right? I keep giving you the benefit of doubt, not sure why, but if you really need literal examples of the use of theological reflection specifically mentioning some of the doctrinal developments I gave you, well, these examples are extremely easy to find. I amaze myself at the patience I show you in doing even more Google searches for you.
                                In its classical formulation as ‘unity in Trinity’ and ‘Trinity in unity’, the Christian doctrine of God, "the capital of our faith," according to Saint Gregory the Theologian, is not directly stated in the Bible. Rather, this formulation is the result of a gradual theological reflection upon the subject of the Church's faith as it is roughly portrayed in the Bible and lived in the experience of the Church. This process began in the 2nd and was concluded in the 4th century ... It is exactly this Trinitarian revelation which is the scope and the aim of the Church's theological reflection, with the purpose to guard it against human ungodly reflection. In other words, while human reason, unable to conceive of the paradox of God's Trinity and unity by human standards, tends to place divine reality on the same line of human philosophical, religious, and historical thought forms. The theological reflection of the Church expounds and interprets the biblical revelation about God.
                                http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/engl...trinity_1.html

                                If St Gregory is too ancient of an example for you, how about Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, who saw the doctrine of the Trinity as the result of the community of faith’s reflection on Scripture’; ‘the doctrine of the Trinity is not itself given in revelation, but results from reflection on revelation as the outcome of theological reflection. Cf. Alister E. McGrath. Emil Brunner: A Reappraisal, 2013, pp. 50-54.
                                The Wesleyan Quadrilateral, or Methodist Quadrilateral, is a methodology for theological reflection that is credited to John Wesley, leader of the Methodist movement in the late 18th Century. The term itself was coined by 20th century American Methodist scholar Albert C. Outler. This method based its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development, scripture, tradition, experience and reason.
                                http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral

                                Jumping to the 20th century:
                                In scholasticis theologis non defuere qui, cum in veritates divinitus revelatas altius introspicere vellent, atque illum praebere cuperent concentum, qui inter rationem theologicam, quae dicitur, ac catholicam intercedit fidem, animadvertendum putarent hoc Mariae Virginis Assumptionis privilegium cum divinis veritatibus miro quodam modo concordare, per Sacras Litteras nobis traditis. …

                                Cum autem, media aetate, Theologia Scholastica maxime floreret, S. Albertus Magnus, variis ad rem probandam collatis argumentis, quae vel Sacris Litteris, vel sententiis a maioribus traditis, vel denique Liturgia rationeque theological, quae dicitur, innituntur, ita concludit: « His rationibus et auctoritatibus et multis aliis manifestum est, quod Beatissima Dei Mater in corpore et anima super choros Angelorum est assumpta. Et hoc modis omnibus credimus esse verum », (S. ALBERTUS MAGNUS, Mariale sive quaestiones super Evang. «Missus est », q. 132).
                                http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pi...s-deus_lt.html

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                It still remains the basic Doctrines and Dogma of Christianity remain fixed at ~400 AD based on the scripture, and none of your references remotely refers to 'Theological Reflection' as changing anything here.
                                See above. And note that there is no reason to limit our discussion to basic doctrines and dogmas. One of the examples of Baha'i revelation under discussion is slavery. While this was generally considered acceptable in the Jewish and Christian scriptures, and among various churches, well into the 19th century, you will be hard pressed to find any synagogues or churches that will defend this practice today.

                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                If you want to discuss how the Roman Church and other churches describe the changes and/or reasons they changed or added to Doctrine Dogma and Revelation and formed new churches I a willing to discuss that.

                                Hint, many of these changes as in the new churches like LDS an JW, the claim that new 'Revelation' was received from God.
                                The Mormons are a good example to bring up in comparison with the Bahai'i model of revelation. Baha'i consider racial equality to be a matter of revelation, and the Mormons too, when it was finally unavoidable that they allow African Americans to be ordained, felt it necessary to proclaim that a new revelation had been received to reverse their earier position. Other synagogues and churches merely recognize the truth of this and similar matters without the need for a new revelation.
                                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                159 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                426 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X