Divine revelation

[Doug Shaver]

In a philosophical sense, you don't provide justification for an axiom.

None of my professors told me that while I was earning my philosophy degree.

An axiom is taken as true by definition, as you rightly point out.

An axiom is not true by definition. It is unproven by definition.

Justification in this sense would only be applicable to a conclusion.

Justification is applicable to any statement. It is the reason for believing that statement, whether it is the conclusion of an argument or a premise of an argument.

In the layman sense, we can conceivably provide a number of cases we belief exemplify the axiom. Even so, these aren't proof of the axiom per se,

I didn't say a word about proving any axiom. If we can prove it, it's not an axiom.

Claims of obviousness or self-evidence are simply declarations that support is not needed.

Declaring it so doesn't make it so. Not even when it's philosophers who do the declaring.

I haven't suggested that we accept axioms arbitrarily. I don't actually believe that we have much control over which axioms we accept, but that's quite a bit different than being arbitrary.

I agree that if we believe something because we cannot believe otherwise, we're not being arbitrary. But that should stop us from asking ourselves, with all the good faith at our disposal, "Why can't we believe otherwise?"

[Scrawly]

It might also describe how revelation happens in a very human manner, individuals and communities coming to recognzie and articulate a view of themselves and their world as somehow authoritative and of foundational meaning. No need to assume that such has happened; clearly it has. We need only ask if it is properly called divine by those who believe it.

Personally, I would only believe it based on my own perception of meaning within my life as a member of a community. If anyone has any knowledge or experience or awareness of God, typically in a loving community that believes in God, it is accepted that it can only come from God, even if only articulated by humans with our very limited abilities. If you are looking for, or interested in invalidating, something more objective than that, I can't be of much help. An act of sacrifice, of compassion, of healing community, of life-giving empowerment and fruitfulness. All of these are rather intangible but nonetheless real for those who believe in them. I don't look for God to revealed outside of the human sphere but only within and through the human community.

Interesting Rob, but why not consider God to be a possible cause for historical effects, such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and see what explanatory power this possibility has for the historical evidence available to us of early Christianity? Beginning there could, and I think very well should, give Christianity some objective historical grounding outside of subjective human experience.

[robrecht]

[/B]

Interesting Rob, but why not consider God to be a possible cause for historical effects, such as the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, and see what explanatory power this possibility has for the historical evidence available to us of early Christianity? Beginning there could, and I think very well should, give Christianity some objective historical grounding outside of subjective human experience.

I certainly do! Sorry if that was not clear.

[Scrawly]

I certainly do! Sorry if that was not clear.

My mistake then, and my apologies.

[shunyadragon]

So, that's not representative of Baha'i followers?

I think I'll take Carrik's word on it.

I doubt that it would be practical to stereotype what is representative of Baha'i. Actually Carrik was just being rhetorically sarcastic, with a meaningless weak attempt at an insult.

[shunyadragon]

Back to the subject at hand. One or more posters considered Christians talking to God as 'Divine Revelation.' At least one stated that if a Christian did not believe they talked with God, then they were not a Christian. The problem I see is many Christians who claim to talk to God believe in very different Revelations. Claims of talking to God personally includes also other religions who very different conversations with different results including Whirling Dervishes.

Problem, who here is really talking to the one True God?

[Cow Poke]

Back to the subject at hand.

Wanna bet?

One or more posters considered Christians talking to God as 'Divine Revelation.'

Can you cite an example? Cause "Divine Revelation" is when God reveals something to us --- there's nothing we can "reveal" to God that He doesn't already know.

[Jedidiah]

One or more posters considered Christians talking to God as 'Divine Revelation.' At least one stated that if a Christian did not believe they talked with God, then they were not a Christian.

I seem to have missed this claim. Who made it and where?

[robrecht]

I seem to have missed this claim. Who made it and where?

He completely misunderstood your point.

[shunyadragon]

And

Source: M�idiy-i Asm�ni 2: 69

Some of the philosophers of Europe think that one species evolves into another species. For example, that the animal evolved until it became a human being. But the prophets teach that this theory is erroneous, as we have explained already in the book Some Answered Questions.

© Copyright Original Source

http://bahaitheway.blogspot.com/2007...confusion.html

And while shunyadragon may find that the Baha'i faith has an evolved understanding of the "social and legal equality of women" compared to those religions he shows contempt for, what he's not telling you is that women are not eligible for election (nine members every five years) to the Universal House of Justice, which is the governing body of the Baha'i faith.

shunyadragon also won't tell you that the Baha'i view on homosexuality is not in harmony with modern psychology and the paradigms of "the world we are entering into". The Baha'i faith teaches that homosexuality is an abnormality that should be treated medically:

Source: http://bahai-library.com/compilation_homosexuality_bwc#page7

...the Faith does not recognize homosexuality as a "natural" or permanent phenomenon. Rather, it sees this as an aberration subject to treatment, however intractable exclusive homosexuality may now seem to be. To the question of alteration of homosexual bents, much study must be given, and doubtless in the future clear principles of prevention and treatment will emerge. As for those now afflicted, a homosexual does not decide to be a problem human, but he does, as you rightly state, have decision in choosing his way of life, i.e. abstaining from homosexual acts.

© Copyright Original Source

You have repeatedly ignored the fundamental principle of the Baha'i Faith that ALL religious scripture must be interpreted in the light of the evolving knowledge science including Baha'i scripture.

[shunyadragon]

I seem to have missed this claim. Who made it and where?

It was in the previous thread that inspired Doug to start this thread and stay on topic.

Actually you started the ball rolling in Breaking Bad Religion #103 in response to Doug.

Not, not at all. Just show me how you learned anything about the creator without learning it from another person.

You responded:

Divine Revelation

Breaking Bad Religion #114.

If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.

Can a Christian claim personally 'Divine Revelation?'

[robrecht]

It was in the previous thread that inspired Doug to start this thread and stay on topic.

Actually you started the ball rolling in Breaking Bad Religion #103.


Breaking Bad Religion #114. Can a Christian claim personally 'Divine Revelation?'

Source: Darth Executor

If you do not claim Divine Revelation then you are not a Christian.

© Copyright Original Source

What makes you think you understood Darth Executor's claim any better than your initial misunderstanding of Jedidiah, who was speaking of accepting Scripture as divine revelation?

[Cow Poke]

He completely misunderstood your point.

Does he do that on purpose? Or is he just "not all there"?

[robrecht]

Does he do that on purpose? Or is he just "not all there"?

I don't think he does it on purpose, but his apologetic stance with respect to Baha'i faith being a more evolved perspective than Christianity does at times seem to influence an overly negative portrayal of Christian theology. It's anybody's guess as to whether he is as senile as you or I, but that would be hard to believe.

[Cow Poke]

I don't think he does it on purpose, but his apologetic stance with respect to Baha'i faith being a more evolved perspective than Christianity does at times seem to influence an overly negative portrayal of Christian theology. It's anybody's guess as to whether he is as senile as you or I, but that would be hard to believe.

I do not suffer from senility!





I rather enjoy it!