Is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" a legitimate question?

[shunyadragon]

So you do not in fact agree with Sen's characterization of your belief in infallibility and inerrancy as a meaningless and empty statement?

Careful, picking and standing on a selective anal attentive 'certain citations' and not trying to understand the whole context. You may not have ignored my posts, but you clearly ignore the over all context, and meaning.

Sen was specific when he referred to 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility,' and I agree with his assessment of the problem. You actually missed my efforts to edit with more clarification. I believe in 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' which describes the evolving nature of Divine knowledge for ALL of humanity, and not the narrow 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility' in the Roman Church, and in a more restrictive form in Fundamentalist Christianity. The reference I provided gives some good dialogue into the evolving Baha'i view.

[robrecht]

Careful, picking and standing on a selective anal attentive 'certain citations' and not trying to understand the whole context. You may not have ignored my posts, but you clearly ignore the over all context, and meaning.

Sen was specific when he referred to 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility,' and I agree with his assessment of the problem. You actually missed my efforts to edit with more clarification. I believe in 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' which describes the evolving nature of Divine knowledge for ALL of humanity, and not the narrow 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility' in the Roman Church, and in a more restrictive form in Fundamentalist Christianity. The reference I provided gives some good dialogue into the evolving Baha'i view.

I note that you neglected to answer my question. Answering my questions would be the most effective way for you to clarify.

By the way, when you revise a post after I have responded to it, my response cannot be expected to have responded to the elements you have added after my response. I have long understood that your view of infallibility and inerrancy is a progressive one. We had that conversation a long time ago, long before you edited your post this morning. It is yet another false ad hominem for you to say that I am not trying to understand the whole context or that I have ignored the overall context and meaning.

So would you now like to clarify your beliefs further by saying that it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures, none of which are themselves infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

[shunyadragon]

I note that you neglected to answer my question. Answering my questions would be the most effective way for you to clarify.

By the way, when you revise a post after I have responded to it, my response cannot be expected to have responded to the elements you have added after my response. I have long understood that your view of infallibility and inerrancy is a progressive one. We had that conversation a long time ago, long before you edited your post this morning. It is yet another false ad hominem for you to say that I am not trying to understand the whole context or that I have ignored the overall context and meaning.

So would you now like to clarify your beliefs further by saying that it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures, none of which are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

I added the above bolded to clarify my view.

The edits did not change much just clarification, by putting 'propositional' in more places to avoid your tendency to selectively quote. The fact that Sen provided the objections to 'propositional inerrancy and in fallibility, and not 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility.' even before my edits.

Again, my belief is 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility,' which includes ALL Revelation in human history. The explanation is DONE.

[robrecht]

The edits did not change much just clarification. The fact that Sen provided the objections to 'propositional inerrancy and in fallibility, and not 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility.' even before my edits.

Again, my belief is 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility,' which includes ALL Revelation in human history. The explanation is DONE.

But still no direct answer to my questions.

[shunyadragon]

But still no direct answer to my questions.

I believe in 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' of Revelation throughout human history. Your previous post actually described this belief ok. Part of your efforts are to press for specifics as to which scripture is 'propositional' or 'progressive' or maybe 'providential inspiration.' Such demands of specificity are beyond the scope of this dialogue. All I could say is possibly all of the above. From the human perspective 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' best explains the nature of Revelation throughout human history.

I have to be careful with agreeing with you, because it sometimes becomes a semantic mine field. but the below comes close.

So would you now like to clarify your beliefs further by saying that it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration [and progressive inerrancy and infallibility] of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures, none of which are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

[robrecht]

I believe in 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' of Revelation throughout human history. Your previous post actually described this belief ok.

But your insertion introduced an element that renders my statement ambiguous and therefore in need of clarification.

Part of your efforts are to press for specifics as to which scripture is 'propositional' or 'progressive' or maybe 'providential inspiration.'

No, I have not asked you this. I have asked you to tell us why you believe the spiritual laws and teachings of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. This question you have still not answered. I have also asked you if it is only the spiritual laws and teachings within the Baha'i sacred scriptures that you consider infallible and inerrant or the entirety of the Baha'i sacred scriptures? This question has also not been answered, but it may have been confused with what some people have asked you, namely what are these spiritual laws. Most recently, I think you provided three spiritual laws, one of which appears in my opinion to be taught inconsistently by Baha'i leaders. These second or third questions, especially the third, might be understood as asking you for specific propositions.

Such demands of specificity are beyond the scope of this dialogue. All I could say is possibly all of the above. From the human perspective 'progressive inerrancy and infallibility' best explains the nature of Revelation throughout human history.

Or perhaps you could just try to answer the basic why question, ie, why do you consider the spiritual laws and teachings of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be infallible and inerrant?

I have to be careful with agreeing with you, because it sometimes becomes a semantic mine field. but the below comes close:

... it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration [and progressive inerrancy and infallibility] of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures, none of which are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

I see that you have now added a second, earlier insertion to my statement. Let's deal with each one specifically.

1) ... it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration [and progressive inerrancy and infallibility] of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures ...

- Do you agree that, with this addition, this statement is no longer speaking of the infallibility and inerrancy of any particular scriptures but rather the infallibility and inerrancy of God as one who inspires scriptures?

2) ... none of which [the various holy scriptures] are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

- When you add the word proposition (propositionally?), you are agreeing that none of the scriptures are proposiotinally infallible, which has never been a matter of discussion between us, but are you also holding out another sense in which any of the scriptures are indeed infallible and inerrant in some nonpropositional sense? If so, in what sense do you believe that the Baha'i holy scriptures are infallible and inerrant, and why?

[shunyadragon]

But your insertion introduced an element that renders my statement ambiguous and therefore in need of clarification.

No, I have not asked you this. I have asked you to tell us why you believe the spiritual laws and teachings of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be infallible and inerrant. This question you have still not answered. I have also asked you if it is only the spiritual laws and teachings within the Baha'i sacred scriptures that you consider infallible and inerrant or the entirety of the Baha'i sacred scriptures? This question has also not been answered, but it may have been confused with what some people have asked you, namely what are these spiritual laws. Most recently, I think you provided three spiritual laws, one of which appears in my opinion to be taught inconsistently by Baha'i leaders. These second or third questions, especially the third, might be understood as asking you for specific propositions.

Or perhaps you could just try to answer the basic why question, ie, why do you consider the spiritual laws and teachings of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be infallible and inerrant?



I see that you have now added a second, earlier insertion to my statement. Let's deal with each one specifically.

1) ... it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration [and progressive inerrancy and infallibility] of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures ...

- Do you agree that, with this addition, this statement is no longer speaking of the infallibility and inerrancy of any particular scriptures but rather the infallibility and inerrancy of God as one who inspires scriptures?

2) ... none of which [the various holy scriptures] are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

- When you add the word proposition (propositionally?), you are agreeing that none of the scriptures are proposiotinally infallible, which has never been a matter of discussion between us, but are you also holding out another sense in which any of the scriptures are indeed infallible and inerrant in some nonpropositional sense? If so, in what sense do you believe that the Baha'i holy scriptures are infallible and inerrant, and why?

This getting too much contorted and anal. Just read the posts I have provided and end it.

[robrecht]

This getting too much contorted and anal. Just read the posts I have provided and end it.

Why is it so difficult or contorted for you? On the one hand, it is of some importance to correct your misstatements about me, but I would also think you would want your own view of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be clearly expressed. This is a theology website after all. I think if you follow the thought process through to its conclusion, you will find an expression of your beliefs that is much simpler and not at all contorted.

[shunyadragon]

Why is it so difficult or contorted for you? On the one hand, it is of some importance to correct your misstatements about me,

Just clarification, not my misstatements..

. . . but I would also think you would want your own view of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures to be clearly expressed. This is a theology website after all. I think if you follow the thought process through to its conclusion, you will find an expression of your beliefs that is much simpler and not at all contorted.

I have done that. Your contortion is the problem.

Simple, as stated already, I believe in Progressive inerrancy and infallibility involving the evolution of ALL the spiritual history of humanity.

I believe this because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? See the appropriate thread in Comparative Religions.

[robrecht]

Just clarification, not my misstatements..

I have done that. Your contortion is the problem.

Simple, as stated already, I believe in Progressive inerrancy and infallibility involving ALL the spiritual history of humanity.

I believe this because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? See the appropriate thread in Comparative Religions.

I actually think the clarification of your views on these two remaining ambiguous points would end up being much less contorted than what you have said so far.

For example, you might say that you believe the Baha'i sacred scriptures, and other scriptures as well, reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant.

Very simple. That simple view may not be your own; perhaps your view is more complicated. Perhaps indeed you do hold to some non-propositional sense of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures? If so, please tell us.

[shunyadragon]

I actually think the clarification of your views on these two remaining ambiguous points would end up being much less contorted than what you have said so far.

My explanations are straight forward matters of belief. No ambiguity on my part. Sen has studied Baha'i scriptures in a more academic way. OK, he has some interesting insights, but I do not necessarily agree with everything he says.

For example, you might say that you believe the Baha'i sacred scriptures, and other scriptures as well, reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant.

Yes, you might say so. The idea that scripture reflects the infallibility of God, but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant, is an interesting perspective. The other compounding problem is understanding from the human perspective, which further complicates the belief in 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility.'

Very simple. That simple view may not be your own;

I simplified for you understanding. If not mine whose? There are of course other Baha'is who share my view, and some may believe in a stronger, more propositional inerrancy and infallibility of the Baha'i Revelation for their own reasons and understanding of belief.

perhaps your view is more complicated. Perhaps indeed you do hold to some non-propositional sense of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Baha'i sacred scriptures? If so, please tell us.

I actually have long viewed the nature of our existence as an evolving process before I became a Baha'i. The Buddhist perspective was enlightening to me, but not the orthodoxy of Buddhism. The principles of 'nothing is necessary' and impermanence rules from the human perspective.' It was obvious that the many static religious and/or philosophical beliefs based on ancient scripture did not reflect the universal. particularly the Roman Church and any of the individual reform minded divisions that tried to make things right. There was obviously a progressive nature to our existence whether God existed or not.

[robrecht]

My explanations are straight forward matters of belief. No ambiguity on my part. Sen has studied Baha'i scriptures in a more academic way. OK, he has some interesting insights, but I do not necessarily agree with everything he says.

Yes, you might say so. The idea that scripture reflects the infallibility of God, but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant, is an interesting perspective. The other compounding problem is understanding from the human perspective, which further complicates the belief in 'propositional inerrancy and infallibility.'

I simplified for you understanding.

You simplified what for my understanding?

If not mine whose?

Mine, of course. I offered the simplification. If you accept it, then it is also your view. Do you accept it? You say it is an interesting perspective--the idea that scriptures reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant--but is it your perspective? If so, then you have accepted my last two clarifications.

[shunyadragon]

You simplified what for my understanding?

Simple, as stated already, I believe in Progressive inerrancy and infallibility involving the evolution of ALL the spiritual history of humanity.

I believe this because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? See the appropriate thread in Comparative Religions.

Mine, of course. I offered the simplification. If you accept it, then it is also your view. Do you accept it? You say it is an interesting perspective--the idea that scriptures reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant--but is it your perspective? If so, then you have accepted my last two clarifications.

I have to be careful with agreeing with you, because it sometimes becomes a semantic mine field. but the below comes close.

So would you now like to clarify your beliefs further by saying that it is not, in fact, the Baha'i sacred scriptures, or specific parts thereof, that you consider to be infallible and inerrant, but rather a providential inspiration [and progressive inerrancy and infallibility] of God that is successively revealing himself to humankind in many holy scriptures, none of which are themselves [propositional] infallible and inerrant, but all of which point to God's progressive revelation of himself to humankind. Something like that perhaps?

[robrecht]

Simple, as stated already, I believe in Progressive inerrancy and infallibility involving the evolution of ALL the spiritual history of humanity.

I believe this because I believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Why do I believe in the Baha'i Faith? See the appropriate thread in Comparative Religions.

So do you agree that the various scriptures may reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant?

[shunyadragon]

So do you agree that the various scriptures may reflect the infallibility of God but are not in and of themselves infallible and inerrant?

OK