Deep in this is a response to David Siemans, but most of this is to David O. At the end is a response to Debbie Mann.
David O wrote:This has nothing to do with any notion of progressive revelation. Within the Buddhist worldview, there is room for enlightened individuals who may come on the scene from time to time, but this doesn't represent some sort of refinement of the commands or message of a sovereign God. The entire concept of "revelation" as we are using it is foreign to a Buddhist worldview, so this is really a category mistake in any event.
GRMreplies: Then you don’t know what I know about Buddhism.
>>>Mahayana Buddhism (Sanskrit for "Greater Vehicle"), along with Theravada Buddhism, are the two principal branches of Buddhist belief. Mahayana originated in India and subsequently spread throughout China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Central Asia, Vietnam, and Taiwan. Followers of Mahayana have traditionally regarded their doctrine as the full revelation of the nature and teachings of the Buddha, in opposition to the earlier Theravada tradition, which they characterize as the Lesser Vehicle<<<
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mahayana.htm
The Encyclopedia Britannica says this:
“New revelations are made not only to human beings on earth but also in the heavenly paradises by Sakyamuni and other buddhas.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-68722
So, I would say you are wrong in your belief that Buddhism does not engage in progressive revelation. Last march I posted a quote from the Dalai Lama saying that he would change buddhist scriptures to match reality—that is a form of progressive revelation.
Also, Tibetan Buddhism incorporates some aspects of the previous religion, Bon, which was a shamanistic religion. Like many religions, it became syncratic. But, they seem to have no problem incorporating god after god after god.
David O.: I think most Muslims would be shocked by this. Again, it has nothing to do with a notion of progressive revelation. Muslims simply reject the NT's claims that Jesus is God. If any religion resists a robust theology of inspiration, it is Islam.
GRM replies: I think George M. is right when he says that Islam may be a form of Christianity, but, they do beleive Jesus was a prophet from Allah and since he taught different stuff, the logic must be that this is a changed revelation. They also beleive Allah sent Moses. This from the Koran:
"Surah 2.87": And most certainly We gave Musa the Book and We sent apostles after him one after another; and We gave Isa, the son of Marium, clear arguments and strengthened him with the holy spirit, What! whenever then an apostle came to you with that which your souls did not desire, you were insolent so you called some liars and some you slew.”
Then of course, they claim that the Christians didn’t get it right and it needs their Apostle to set it right:
"4.157": And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
"5.15": O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you making clear to you much of what you concealed of the Book and passing over much; indeed, there has come to you light and a clear Book from Allah;
"5.19": O followers of the Book! indeed Our Apostle has come to you explaining to you after a cessation of the (mission of the) apostles, lest you say: There came not to us a giver of good news or a warner, so indeed there has come to you a giver of good news and a warner; and Allah has power over all things.
"5.59": Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?
Sounds a bit progressive to me because it makes a distinction between what was revealed to them and what was revealed to the Jews and Christians, even if one doesn’t want to call it that.
When I asked what was the natural limit to change, David wrote:
David O: One way to think about this, perhaps, is that God's revelation is always self-revelation. God can always reveal more of Himself and more about Himself to us. But that is also a "limit" to His revelation, since His revelation must always be consistent with His self and His character. So, for example, though God may yet reveal (and I would say, in the eschaton, will reveal) more to us about the nature of Christ's Lordship, a "revelation" that denies Christ's Lordship could not be thought authentic, as that would be inconsistent with His fundamental nature.
GRM: Agreed, God could reveal more of himself, so why does he stop in the year 33 AD. Why isn’t Islam a wee bit more of God revealed?
As to the revelation of his self and character, I presume you are setting up the tautological defence here. God’s character and self are thoroughly consistent with your idea and concept of the Judeo-Christian God. Then if someone comes up with some theology different from that, you use the tautology to rule out things like Islam etc. But you forget a couple of things. To do this means you have knowledge of God and who he is that most mortals don’t have. What if God really is a klingon war god and wants us to kill our neighbors? You would rule it out based upon the tautology, but if God is a klingon war god, then you would be metaphysically wrong and in danger of whatever eternal punishment a klingon war god could mete out.
David O. wrote: I don't want to speak for Dave, but I don't take him to be saying that Christ is the "only" thing important in theology. I think he's suggesting that Christ is the lense through which we view all of theology, including our theology of the inspiration of scripture.
GRM: fine, to the Tibetan Buddhist, he would say that Buddha past, present and future are the lens through which he sees theology. Why is your lens so good and his so bad? Is it because it disagrees with your tautological definition?
David O wrote: In fact, the orthodox view, I think, is that God's fullest revelation of Himself is in the person of Christ. To the extent God's word requires some sort of "authentication," that primarily comes to us in the person of Christ. We don't look to the difficult passages of Genesis to authenticate our belief in Christ. We look to our belief in Christ to authenticate our faith in the trustworthiness of God's written revelation despite our present difficulties with Genesis.
GRM: This is epistemologically entirely self-referential.
David O wrote: More importantly, God's revelation to us in the person of Christ demonstrates that God's self-revelation to us is incarnational. And His written revelation also is incarnational. The fact that His written revelation is incarnational means it came to us through particular people in a particular historical context. Just as we shouldn't be surprised that Jesus lived and spoke according to the culture and conventions of his day, we shouldn't be surprised that God's written word carries the voice and presuppositions of the cultures and times during which it was written. It is, then, another category mistake to "test" God's written word according to the rationalistic proof standards and scientific presuppositions of modernism.
GRM: so how can you be sure that God isn’t speaking through the cultural traditions involved with yak butter rituals?
David O. wrote:
But there are many valid epistemic positions between Wittgensteinian fideism and positivism. The use of the term REAL in connection only with "observational data" seems problematic to me. Why is "observational data" the only thing that is REAL?
GRM: Well, how does one test whether God said, “Angels exist; leprechauns don’t”? That is a statement about theological things and one needs some way to determine the truth of that statement.
GRM: What if one wants to know if the statement “there are rewards in heaven” is true? What test can you run on this to determine the truth value of the sentence? With observational data, we know how to run the test and we risk having the test falsify our view. But, how to you run a test which might falsify the view that there are rewards for the godly?
GRM: More importantly, how does one test this concept?
"13.43": And those who disbelieve say: You are not a messenger. Say: Allah is sufficient as a witness between me and you and whoever has knowledge of the Book.
Isn’t he doing exactly what you said you were doing when you said: “We look to our belief in Christ to authenticate our faith in the trustworthiness of God's written revelation despite our present difficulties with Genesis.”
Why is it ok for you to do this and not for Mohammed? Please tell me how you distinguish which is true and which is false? What is your methodology?
When David Siemans wrote:
>>>A negative after image is strictly confined to the experiencing individual but only a fool will claim that there is no such thing because I can't show you mine and you can't show me yours. So I contend that the work of the Spirit IS evidence. J. B. Phillips noted that, as he was translating the scriptures, he sometimes had the feeling that he was working on the wiring with the mains still on. I have the testimony of others whose lives changed through their trust in Christ. I know that those who do not want to recognize the deity can find a nonreligious explanation--only the religious one has so much greater effect. Coulson's work in prisons has less recidivism than other types of programs.”<<<<<
His example isn’t the same as the above. Yes, I can have experiences you can also have, but how does one compare the claims of Mohammed or a Buddhist with those we have? How do we tell which are false and which are true. Methodology please. You claim your experience is real; they claim theirs is real. How does the outsider tell?
David O wrote: Given the limits of our noetic equipment and the theory-laden nature of all observations, why even be so confident that "observational data" necessarily is REAL?
GRM: Oh really, noetic...theory laden? The sky is blue in Beijing today, Sunday May 27. What is so theory-laden about that? (unless one wishes to doubt the ability to determine blue, determine what a Beijing is, or determine what a sky is. That statement is either true or false. There is very little mumbo-jumbo about theory-ladenness about it.
David O wrote: And why would we put God to the test of "observational data" in the first instance? Who bears the burden of proof? It seems to me that huge chunks of epistemic ground are being conceded here that don't necessarily have to be conceded.
GRM: Doesn’t the bible say “but test everything; hold fast what is good” 1 Thes 5:21.
Maybe you don’t believe that verse.
David O wrote:Personally I lean towards a web-based and presuppositional epistemology rather than a rationalist / foundationalist one, so I don't think the fact that some things can't be verified or that some things seem to conflict with present "observational data" makes the whole house of cards collapse. I have to admit that I therefore can't "prove" Christianity is true and Buddhism is not, but I don't think that's a proper epistemic or apologetic stance anyway. I do think that Christianity on balance holds together and makes more sense than competing faiths, and that it's reasonable to believe in Christ. But the gift and assurance of faith ultimately comes from the Holy Spirit and not from evidence.
I remain a Christian because of some of the things about which you write. But, in this century and the last, Christianity loses the best and brightest to atheism because we offer something which isn’t real to every—either YECism, or a grand tautology. As long as one only considers the issue of religion from within a committed Christian view, where all other religions are said to be wrong and thus irrelevant, one will not run into the problem of yak butter. But when one travels the world as much as I have (26 countries so far) and see as much as I see, and see the utter devotion to other religions, one simply can’t avoid the questions I am asking. Somedays I wish I had stayed in the US contentedly blind to the world around me.
To Debbie, who wrote:
>>>> I don't think it is a coincidence that these people with their religion follow some of the same patterns as medieval Christians.
I personally believe in the battle of good and evil. I believe in angels good and bad.
If you wish to truly confuse an issue, there are many ways to do so.
A good liar knows that the story must be predominantly true.
The lie should be very hard to prove.
The issue should be camouflaged.
The victim must be distracted from the truth.
Other religions have a great deal that is good and true in them.
Frequently neither lie not truth can be proved - look at the DaVinci Code claim that Jesus married. How does one prove or disprove this?
If Christianity was the only religion, and all Christians were logical - then the deep yearning that is born within us would lead most of us to Christianity.
The lies do their work. Good people, doing good or seemingly good things, are distracted from the truth.<<<<
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun May 28 2006 - 08:47:31 EDT