Hi, Gilberto, At 03:30 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote: >>Yes. I don't mean just political oppression in a local context. I mean where >>they fit in the large scheme of Christiainities in the world. Virtually any >>kind of statement along the lines of "Muslims believe.." or "Christians >>believe..." will be a generalization. But in life we make certain >>generalizations just in order to speak, and point to trends.<<
As a sociologist of religion, I would never make those generalizations. I don't think that my voice or fingers would let the words out. ;-) How can one make most any generalization which would simultaneously hold true for Roman Catholicism, A Course in Miracles, and the Unification Church? Those who identify with each of these three belief systems define themselves as Christian. >>In the context of discussing Christianities. Roman Catholicism is going to >>represent a large near-typical mass of Christians because the majority of >>Christians are Catholic.<< However, if one was also attempting to study other Christianities, then Roman Catholicism would skew the distribution. One would need to make a correction. >>A small fundamentalist church which calls Catholics non-Christian, while part >>of the picture, and deserving mention, are certainly not representative of >>world Christianity.<< I don't know where you live, but here in the American Bible belt, a great many folks do not consider Roman Catholicism to be Christian. Are these fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals representative of global Christendom (whatever that might be)? No, but aside from the growth of fundamentalism and pentecostalism, especially in the U.S. and Australia, the religious character of the West can be pretty accurately described as post-Christian, secularist, and accommodationist. >>So how are you defining "revelations" and on what basis would you say that >>the Muslim Sufis you claimed to receive revelation but Pentecostals >>wouldn't?<< I was not defining it exactly, but it appears to me that there is a great deal of similarity between what some Sufis claim to experience and the populist revelations in Roman Catholicism which you had mentioned. In other words, individual guidance, prophecy, revelation, visions, etc. (whatever terms one wishes to use) are common in certain segments of two (largely) authority-centered religious networks: Islam and Christianity. >>Coming back.<< I was referring to the Qadians as Muslims who believe in continuing prophethood. >>Actually, that reminds me of an unrelated point which might be illuminating >>about other issues. Apparently the Bahai writings have some negative things >>to say about Arius.<< http://bahai-library.com/uhj/arius.html >>Which surprised me because from my perspective and the perspective of alot of >>Muslims who heard about him, he's seen as a step in the right direction >>(because he was an early Christian clergyman who did not believe Jesus was >>God) although in other respects he had an exalted view of Jesus). At some >>point, Arianism was even the official interpretation of Christianity for the >>Empire.<< Apparently the principal reason is that, regardless of the merits or lack of merits of various Arian positions, Shoghi Effendi placed unity over correctness. >>It seems that in the Bahai faith unity is more important than truth. I don't >>know. I guess that's my take on it.<< Yes, I anticipated what you wrote. Ideally, assuming people are sufficiently open-minded, critical, and unprejudiced, unity in diversity (consultation) should lead to the discovery of truth. >>Yes, not all, just sunnis, shias, and khawarij. I think philosophically your >>point is in some sense "too deep" for us to have a conversation because if >>you absolutely refuse to make any kind of generalization then it is hard to >>say anything at all.<< I am usually willing to generalize. However, I am hesitant to generalize in any way which disenfranchises a minority position (especially an oppressed minority like the Qadianis). >>I am actually comfortable with that idea and would insist on it if we were in >>a math class because categorical statements are only true if they are >>absolutely true. But in the rest of the world such a standard tends to put an >>end to conversation.<< As a sociologist of religion specializing in NRMs, I am very sympathetic to the problems of the Qadianis, even if they have not always been very respectful to my own religion. >>But there aren't just two levels. The concepts of revelation different in >>kind and extent. Alot of these Catholic examples are specific verbal messages >>which are said to come from God and are delivered to the world.<< Many of the Ismailis, including the Nizaris, also believe in continuing revelation after Muhammad. It is one of the reasons the Ismailis have been so controversial (and secretive). >>What do you think my argument is?<< You are arguing that Muslims, as you define Muslims, do not believe in further prophets. The problem with this approach, which involves excluding certain people who *claim* to be Muslims, is that it becomes self-confirming or tautological. Thus, you are willing to include Jehovah's Witnesses as Christians, but you are apparently not willing to include Qadianis as Muslims. As I see it, if you consistently applied your previous argument, based on the minority status of Qadianis, to the Jehovah's Witnesses, you would not accept them as Christians either. For myself, I accept everyone (including those people called "Covenant-breakers" in my own religion) as whatever they claim to be in the contexts of their own paradigms. >>That's a larger point which doesn't really address the particulars of what >>I've been trying to get across. What you are talking about is a certain >>belief about communication and language which rule out both my position and >>the negation of my position.<< I am really just referring to paradigmatic relativism. Some arguments can be valid in relationship to one paradigm and invalid in relation to another. >>So from a certain point of view, it's not that interesting when one is >>actually in the middle of a discussion or debate. So have you seen Ghost Dog >>yet?<< As I said, it appears to me that your argument for the consistency of Islam on the issue of prophethood is based on your having already defined the players. >>So what do you think "revelation" means there? What kind of assumptions are >>you making just because of the same word (in English)?<< I don't know. I had hoped you could tell me what he was talking about. ;-) With regards, Mark A. Foster � 15 Sites: http://markfoster.net "Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger" -- Abbie Hoffman __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
