On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:51:59 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, Gilberto, > At 11:49 AM 1/10/2005, you wrote: > >>But even Iblis and the Dajjal have a "particular spiritual function", no?<,
Mark: > For those who believe in the devil and/or the anti-Christ, they have a > function. A position, even an imaginary one, can perform a role (expected > behavior) without having an association with an actual being. Gilberto: I didn't mean to invoke a discussion on whether Satan is literally real or metaphorical or something else. I just meant that at least as I understand it, the Dajjal is supposed to be a false claimant and that in fact there would be many false claimants. The Bible says something similar. You seem to almost be suggesting that any claimant with any sort of following can be "true" as far as they go. So it seems you are refraining from applying your paradigm in some cases. Or just being silent about it. > Fundamentally, I am suggesting something along the line of Kuhn's > "paradigmatic pragmatism." IMO, there is no such "thing" as absolute truth. > Spiritual and scientific truths are only truths in relation to a particular > divine or human paradigm or structurization (a volitional framework). So, if > God's Will changes, truths may change, as well. So there is no paradigm which is more "divine" than the others? > > I wrote: > >>>>As I said before, I accept that these individuals have whatever name or > >>>>position they claim in the context of their "structurization" or socially > >>>>constructed paradigm. It is not mine to judge whether God is using them > >>>>for some purpose.<<<< > > You replied: > >>I think that's an idea that I have a hard time getting my head around.<< > > My views on "structurization" are fairly similar to Thomas Kuhn's > paradigmatics and Harold Garfinkel's ethnomethodology. Rules, whether for God > or for man, are relative. Gilberto: > >>So there are all these claims. Aren't they mutually exclusive? In what > >>sense can you accept all the above, while on top of that saying that the > >>Bab (another title, in reality) really is the Mahdi?<< > Messianic claims are mutually exclusive if one exports them from their > paradigms. > > >>Do you accept all the claims equally or is one more real than the other? > >>And isn't it possible for someone to claim to be the Mahdi, have a bunch of > >>people believe him (or her) but then be lying or mistaken?<< > > I accept all of their claims equally. However, I am not asserting a divine > involvement with all of them. (How would I know?) I am simply affirming the > particularity of their paradigms. As I said before, whether I regard them as > seers or inspired, and to what degree, is a separate issue. Gilberto: How is it a seperate issue? Is there ever a case when a person can claim to be a religious figure of a certain sort but thne you would say that they were ultimately false? > Peace Gilberto __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com 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:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu 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/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
