Talk:Progressive revelation (Baháʼí)

rework

I just tried moving a lot of stuff around and rewording things. I was experimenting with section headings and arrangement of the page. It's still not very good. Cuñado - Talk 01:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I think this Millerism progressive revelation reasoning has nothing to do with dharmic religions, 2. I prefer Dharmic religions for the hinduism/buddhism/jainism block, because if we use Indian religions, we a. confuse an area with a cultural sphere, b. risk confusing Indian with Hindu. Indians use to reject the Hindu religion as an imperialist invention, and agreing with that, based on faith issues, I myself consider the following taxonomy:

• Dharmic religion sphere: reincarnation (cyclic), moksha, dharmic/karmic law,

• Buddhism
• Jainism
• Sikhism
• + some more (disregarding Vedas)
• Hinduic religion sphere: above plus Veda based

• Vaishnavism
• Shaivism/Shaktism range (maybe many religions?)
• Smartism

The abrahamitic religions have quite dissimilar cosmologies: noncyclic - you live one life only, there is a beginning and an end of time; adharma - after death you immediately reach "moksha" (or eternal damnation), not only by the evaluation your own acts, but also by an added divine "grace" directly from the one-and-only God who made the whole universe, nothing in this evaluation of your life behavior has anything at all to do with a cosmic law of nature, except as far as God decides so. Bahá'í is nothing like Dharmic, as far as I understand it. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Opposing concepts

The article could maybe mention concepts found in monotheistc religions that tend to oppose the idea of progressive revelation. In particular, the idea of a historical revelation found in a unique Scripture will usually contradict the belief in an unfolding or unpredictable revelation. Other notions that arguably go against this are Tradition and Magisterium, meaning that sacred doctrine requires the historic approval of bishops, apostles, cardinals, theologians and saints. ADM (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think they don't tend to contradict. In the beholders eye, maybe, but in real religions as taught by its teachers: not really. In the beholders eye, maybe because a superficial overview tend to overgeneralize statements made in the religion. Actually, I believe this progressive revelation is taken from Millerism, an American literalist Christian restorationism, trying to evolve around the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of John. Another thing is that we might dislike such reasoning, but that normally shouldn't affect the articles: we're sworn to WP:NPOV, which is part of the Wikipedia "religion". ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 13:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I got it wrong. Progressive revelation is not taken from Millerism. I read the sources, and found that one leading Bahá'í tried to compare this progressive revelation to the Millerite system. I also got the impression that that parallel between the two systems got a rather positive response from many Bahá'í, but that it has been criticised from inside the Bahá'í circles. Good for them, indeed! ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)