Is progressive revelation believable?

[Dawnofhope]

I would say its more firmly rooted in the tradition than that. The New Testament and the Christian Revelation doesn't have any laws to put forward for the "purpose of determining legislation".

I find it hard to believe the Catholic Church has never strayed beyond the bounds of sacred laws into the realm of the running empires, states and nations. The seperation of Church and State came about through the reformation, did it not? A brief analysis of history will no doubt highlight excellent leadership within the Catholic Church but other times when all manner of boundaries have been crossed. It must be interesting being Catholic and defending nearly two thousand years of history. The twin Prophets of the Baha'i Faith were born just over two hundred years ago so its a little easier.

I'm very positive about the Catholic Church as it has promoted genuine interfaith dialogue and has shifted considerably from the Catholic Church of old. I tend to have few arguments with Catholics as they tend to be more able to amicably agree to disagree, unlike their Protestant brothers. It hasn't always been that way of course.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Look at what, though? What would demonstrate that a person is a prophet of a deity?

Their person, their life, their written word. All those have a power to transform, a power that emperors sigh for in vein.

It is a power not of this world. People always expect a worldly king, but instead they get a spiritual king, that requires us to search and partake of choices.

Regards Tony

 

[Tumah]

I believe that one of the main reasons why some people of different faiths can't recognize progressive revelation is because of tribalism. It's about home team with people weather that be team christian or team islam. What people have to realize is that this is not about which team or tribe that you want to stick with, this is about what's true and trying to find the truths where ever we can. Plus we have to recognize this is the age of unity, that the whole human species is one family and the earth is our home.

I believe one of the main reasons why people of different faiths can't recognize later progressions is because of reasoning like you've displayed here.

 

[Left Coast]

I could but I would need to know what YOU consider a prophecy. Do you mean something in the Bible that has been fulfilled by the coming of Baha'u'llah, or do you mean something Baha'u'llah predicted that came to pass?

I'm happy to discuss either version, but in either case, we need to ask the question: how do you know the prophecy came true because Baha'u'llah is a Prophet?

Yes I did because I was in the midst of talking to someone who caused me to want to post those threads, and I was sorry for that later, not because I minded posting to people but because I overextended myself and got sick. Now I have to be more prudent which is why you have not seen any new threads from me lately.

But the important thing is that I did not forget you.

I appreciate that. If you want, we could start a one-on-one debate? It wouldn't have to be a formal debate by any means, but it would just limit the conversation to the two of us so you wouldn't have to worry about responding to a million replies. I wouldn't ask for any kind of time limit for responses so we could both post at our own paces.

 

[Left Coast]

Their person, their life, their written word. All those have a power to transform, a power that emperors sigh for in vein.

It is a power not of this world. People always expect a worldly king, but instead they get a spiritual king, that requires us to search and partake of choices.

Regards Tony

What about their person, life, or written word? We already covered that giving good advice is not sufficient. So what, specifically?

 

[dybmh]

I'm not so learned in the Christian scriptures that I'd be comfortable telling you that you're wrong and discovering later, much to my dismay, that you aren't but I am.

Noted... but you do know more than me...

Any chance that the verse you'd rather be citing is John 14:6?

Heehee, yes... I flipped between tabs too quickly or something...

• If so, then: "Jesus said to him [his disciple, "Doubting" Thomas]: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me."
  • What the heck does that mean? Is it, as you appear to have suggested, a command to "submit to him and let him do the work?"
  • Maybe according to some Christians, but I read:

• Matthew 16:24 New American Standard Bible (NASB) Discipleship Is Costly
  24 "Then Jesus said to His disciples, 'If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.' "
  • Which I understand to mean: "You want to be my disciple? Forget about satisfying your carnal needs and wants before anything else, take up your cross (i.e. the yoke of Heaven?), and follow me while I am here or do what I am doing when I'm not."

• "Submission"??? Maybe someone else sees it, I don't.

Deny oneself, sounds like submission to me. However take up the cross does not sound like Jesus is doing all the work. So, yes, I think you've made a good point. And I appreciate that you added this verse ( Matthew 16:24) to the mix. It makes a big difference.

Thank you,

 

[dybmh]

I was showing the Messengers may not agree, that those who claim to follow a Faith, have the right interpretation.

Regards Tony

OK. That's pretty interesting, Tony. Thanks for that. Food for thought... my brain is happy

 

[Vouthon]

I find it hard to believe the Catholic Church has never strayed beyond the bounds of sacred laws into the realm of the running empires, states and nations.

Outwith the Papal States (the only areas of the world it governed directly as a sacerdotal theocracy), the papacy acted only through the ecclesiastical courts (which had power over canons alone), episcopacy / parish churches and apostolic nuncios (diplomats).

Canon law was strictly separate from secular (Roman, royal or common) law under the secular courts.

But the more important point I made in my last post was the theological one stressed by Pope St. Nicholas I in his 855 AD letter to Khan Boris - the law of the Christians consists only of faith and good works, he said.

The New Testament is devoid of a divinely ordained legal code like Shariah or Torah that God has purportedly revealed for society, so the Church had nothing to point to other than secular law or Mosaic law (which was abrogated criminally, civilly and ceremonially) for civil, criminal etc.

It had no divine laws for the state "revealed" from God in the New Testament or Sacred Tradition to source from but rather had to appeal to natural law mediated through reason and conscience for lawmaking, illuminated by revelation ethically.

As my quotation from Luke illustrates, Jesus refused to become an arbiter in inheritance law, as an example, unlike Moses, Muhammad and Baha'u'llah who each promulgated regulations in this respect (i.e. in the Aqdas).

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm happy to discuss either version, but in either case, we need to ask the question: how do you know the prophecy came true because Baha'u'llah is a Prophet?

Isn't the question more like "How do we know Baha'u'llah is a Prophet because the prophecy came true?" In other words, a prophecy might come true, but how would that prove Baha'u'llah was a Prophet?

Is that what you are asking?

I appreciate that. If you want, we could start a one-on-one debate? It wouldn't have to be a formal debate by any means, but it would just limit the conversation to the two of us so you wouldn't have to worry about responding to a million replies. I wouldn't ask for any kind of time limit for responses so we could both post at our own paces.

I can do it either way but I still have to have time. I will have 2 weeks off at Christmas so I should have time then.

 

[dybmh]

But that's falling into tribalism which is affecting the world negatively today.

I simply don't share that view. I'm sorry. To me it seems practical. Who knows the song Let it Be better than anyone? Paul McCartney. That's not tribalism, it's just plain practical. He's played it like a million times, and he wrote the song.

Whomever has spent the most time invested in a subject is the most knowledgeable ( in general, i know there are exceptions ).

I know that this completely ignores prophecy as a means of gaining knowledge. But that's the point, isn't it? Once a person claims that 1 prophet is better than the other, then that's bias. And that's part of your definition of tribalism. So, 1 prophecy can't be any better than any of the others... or else its biased and tribal. But without ranking the prophets in some manner, then all that's left is expertise, and time spent studying the subject matter. And if that's the mechanism that renders knowledge, then the Muslims have it... completely. They have the most experience and time spent in study of the Qur'an and Hadith. That means they know it best.

What am I missing, my friend? I'm just not seeing any other way around it. Either there's a bias for one prophet over the others, or one must trust that the people who spend the most time "doing it" are the ones who know "it" the best. It's either one or the other, but, it can't be both.

 

[Left Coast]

Isn't the question more like "How do we know Baha'u'llah is a Prophet because the prophecy came true?" In other words, a prophecy might come true, but how would that prove Baha'u'llah was a Prophet?

Is that what you are asking?

Yes, precisely.

I can do it either way but I still have to have time. I will have 2 weeks off at Christmas so I should have time then.

OK we can PM about it, just let me know.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe one of the main reasons why people of different faiths can't recognize later progressions is because of reasoning like you've displayed here.

I believe it is because they believe that their religion is the only true religion so they cannot accept progressive revelation since they are not the last religion in the progression of revelation.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, precisely.

I get it because I have spent most of my time posting to atheists for seven years.
I consider most atheists far more logical than most believers, sorry to say.
I would be an atheist if I was not a Baha'i, but we can get into that later.

OK we can PM about it, just let me know.

Okay, I will try to keep my forum commitments to a minimum.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Outwith the Papal States (the only areas of the world it governed directly as a sacerdotal theocracy), the church acted only through the ecclesiastical courts (which had power over canons alone), episcopacy / parish churches and apostolic nuncios (diplomats).

Canon law was strictly separate from secular (Roman, royal or common) law under the secular courts.

But the more important point I made in my last post was the theological one stressed by Pope St. Nicholas I in his 855 AD letter to Khan Boris - the law of the Christians consists only of faith and good works, he said.

The New Testament is devoid of a divinely ordained legal code like Shariah or Torah that God has revealed for society, so the Church had nothing to point to other than secular law or Mosaic law (which was abrogated) for civil, criminal, family matters etc.

It had no divine laws for the state "revealed" from God in the New Testament or Sacred Tradition to source from but rather appealed to natural law mediated through reason and conscience for lawmaking.

Jesus changed the Mosaic law in regards divorce.

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Matthew 19:7-9

That sounds like a Divine law to me. Its also one that both the Catholic Church and many territories that were part of the Holy Roman Empire took very seriously.

 

[dybmh]

But those wheelhouses operate on their own wheels so they are biased from the get-go.

Can't you see how any or all of them could be wrong, and if they contradict each other then they cannot all be right.
I definitely approach religion from logic, not from mere belief.

All good points, Trailblazer. All good points. I think the difference for me is that I'm attempting to take an academic approach to the subject matter. And that's where the wheelhouse comes in. But if you ask me what I believe... that becomes very complicated very fast. And I would probably confuse myself just trying to type it out.

From an Academic perspective, I think we all have our own forte. I know all kinds of weird IT stuff that most folks don't... because I work in the field. That's really all I was trying to say.

 

[Tumah]

I believe it is because they believe that their religion is the only true religion so they cannot accept progressive revelation since they are not the last religion in the progression of revelation.

I think your belief can be improved upon to be more consistent with reality, by slightly altering it:

I believe it is because their religions teach that it is the only true religion so they cannot accept progressive revelation.​

 

[Vouthon]

Jesus changes the Mosaic law in regards divorce.

Well, Jesus actually makes a moral and theological point here - he directs the questioner back to Genesis and the idealised monogamy of an unbreakable bond, but its not a law.

This is clear when he subsequently says in one of the next verses (after Peter exclaims it's better not getting married at all then): "The one who can accept this should accept it."

You don't get to choose with a law.

For the first millennium, the Catholic West had divorce as a purely legal, secular possibility - morally, the church saw the bond as unbreakable, because of Christ's theological anthropology on the Genesis creation account (so pretty much just as things are for Catholics today).

In the Catholic East, divorce was allowed both legally and morally - such that Eastern Orthodox Christians still have second and third marriages to this day (remember before the Great Schism of 1000, the two churches were the one church).

It wasn’t until around 1100 that the Latin Church got a firm monopoly on marriage as an institution, and had it re-classified as a sacrament (i.e. an affair of religion under ecclesiastical law rather than contract under the state).

Before this, marriages were a contract between families that the Church had nothing much to do with.

After 1100, divorce becomes increasingly stringent until we get to the Henry VIIII annulment level of stuff.

So it's history is variable and not constant.

 

[Trailblazer]

All good points, Trailblazer. All good points. I think the difference for me is that I'm attempting to take an academic approach to the subject matter. And that's where the wheelhouse comes in.

I understand that, but I come from a logical approach so God either exists or not and a religious belief is either true or false... My belief is in no way emotional because I do not even LIKE religion.

But if you ask me what I believe... that becomes very complicated very fast. And I would probably confuse myself just trying to type it out.

Hmmmmmm.... In my case since I am a Baha'i I do not have to come up with my own beliefs. It is what it is although there is plenty of latitude within those parameters, for as you can see, we Baha'is are not all alike.

From an Academic perspective, I think we all have our own forte. I know all kinds of weird IT stuff that most folks don't... because I work in the field. That's really all I was trying to say.

IT as in Information Technology? I work in a closely allied field. I have my own forte and I am the odd woman out in my workplace. Nobody has a clue about what I do.

But I believe in unity in diversity so I think people can get along even if they have different beliefs, as long as they do not insist they are the only true religion.

 

[PruePhillip]

If you told me that, I would say, "Show me your evidence."

I think that when my spouse says he loves me.
And when someone says the universe came from nothing and for no reason whatsoever
And when people say there is no God.
And that my country is the best one to live in.

 

[dybmh]

But I believe in unity in diversity so I think people can get along even if they have different beliefs, as long as they do not insist they are the only true religion.

I am on the record, here on RF consistently saying precisely that.

If I have ever implied "my way or the highway", I certainly apologize. That is not ever my intention.