Gilberto, At 08:28 PM 1/16/2005, you wrote: >>On some level I sympathize. Mathematicians are trained to see statements as >>simply false on the strength of a single counter-example. But full >>mathematical rigor doesn't get you very far in the real world.<<
The work I do isn't very utilitarian. ;-) >>At the same time, there are statements which do apply to some, most, or >>nearly all self-identified Christians. (Would you really give me a hard time >>if I said that most Christians believe that Jesus was a real person, believed >>to be the messiah and the son of God?)<< As an example, the three belief systems I mentioned before would all use those terms, but the meanings they would associate with them are far apart. 1. Official Roman Catholic dogmas would probably have the most traditional views on these subjects. 2. The Unification Church would say that Jesus was a real person (but more like the Jewish or Islamic concept of a "prophet"), a *failed* messiah (because of the failure to John the Baptist and others to accept Him), and the son of God in a metaphorical sense. 3. A Course in Miracles argues that Jesus was a real person, but that, in reality, we are all Jesus. The differences between persons are an illusion. (They are, like proponents of New Thought, extreme monists.) His messiahship was for the Piscean Age and was an example for us. (We should all be messiahs and sons of God.) >>Maybe I'm just having a memory lapse but I think that I've tried to add in >>qualifiers to my statements on this comparison of mine which we have been >>hitting back and forth like a dead horse. (i.e. "Most Christians", >>"Christians tend to..." "Muslims tend to.." "Muslims are more likely to...")<< Then, if you noticed it, I must be doing it more than you. ;-) >>But from another perspective, since most Christians are Catholic, then from >>another point of view they *are* the distribution (at least a large chunk of >>it). If I wanted to talk about what Christians believe world-wide, Catholic >>opinion would weigh very heavily in that picture. If the scope were limited >>to the United States, though, the situation might be different.<< Yes. >>What I'm saying is that if we are going to talk about world-wide >>Christianity, the fact that some Protestants might not think Catholics are >>Christian, that doesn't actually constitute an actual reason to exclude >>Catholics from world-wide Christianity (especially not as a part of a >>conversation between Bahais and a Muslim)<< I would not exclude anyone. I would *include* any group whose members claimed to be Christian. >>For example, some were careful to say that ilham and kashf couldn't provide >>new information which wasn't already contained in the prophetic sources (the >>Quran and sunnah) So they might provide interpretations of the Quran or >>insights into hadith, but probably wouldn't produce detailed specific new >>messages (like Fatima)<< As I said, I don't think that the word is important. Fatima may be a new message, but it is not generally regarded as subtracting from the authority of Christ, the Papacy, or the Bible. >>I could see how you would make that assumption. Maybe I've been unclear. I >>don't think Qadianis should be oppressed. [full stop] At the same time, I >>think "Islam" should mean something and not be some nebulous wishy washy >>category left to be defined by whoever chooses to use the name.<< Okay, but who gets to make that decision? Is it majority rules? >>So in the process of defining what it means to be "Muslim" I would actually >>want to be inclusive but certain things should be "dealbreakers". And given >>what my understanding of Islam is, finality of prophethood is one of them.<< That is the majority position. >>That said, I don't expect non-Muslims, especially not Bahais, to go along >>with that so the claim I'm making isn't just tautologically true. It's a >>valid as a generalization (as valid as such a generalization could be)<< On a normal distribution, I would imagine it would be the mean, median, and mode. However, measures of central tendency are, in themselves, incomplete. They need to be supplemented by other descriptive statistics, such as factor analysis, multiple regression, and path analysis. >>So if you want, throw in the Qadianis, the Ismailis, the Five Percent Nation >>of Gods and Earths, etc. But then on the Christian side you "throw in" >>Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, followers of Simon >>Kimbangu, Swedonborgians, Jim Jones, Reverend Moon, the Church of St. John >>Coltrane, the Snake handlers, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, >>Rastafarianism and all the rest.<< Yes, especially the Church of St. John Coltrane (St. John's African Orthodox Church). I've always liked jazz. ;-) >>What I'm saying is that the bulk of the people on the Christian side are much >>more open to the idea of future prophets. And people on the Muslim side have >>a clearer sense that no prophets are coming.<< On average, they use the word more frequently - though not with the same meaning as most Muslims. However, this discussion began as a way to compare claims of finality or exclusiveness; and I don't think that most Christians (such as pentecostals) and Muslims (such as the Qadianis) who speak of prophets regard them as replacing the authorities of the Bible or the Qur'an. 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]
