Talk:Revelation/Archive1

Fix
I've tried to fix the mess that was left here - and at least bring it up to an eigth-grade level in terms of grammar and spelling. Anyone who has anything clever to say on the topic can take it from here.PFoster 14:47, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Revelation religion
Although he seems to have a fair bit of agenda behind it, Dr. Doolittle does have a point in drawing a distinction between those religions that build primarily on revelation (especially the three Abrahamic and Sikhism), and for instance, those that draw on a transmitted tradition (many natural religions) or personal enlightenment (many types of Buddhism). -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, but a revelation is a revelation regardless of the religion. There is a difference between a revelation religion and other kinds, to be certain, but the distinction doesn't fit where he put it.  (The lord Shiva or the Buddha Amidhaba could easily give me a revelation.) Researcher 17:35, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, a revelation is a communication from a divine being to mankind about how to behave properly religiously, such as the Christian scriptures or Moses at Mt. Sinai. That kind of thing does not, as far as I know, happen in Buddhism, for instance, where believers gain such an understanding through meditation or a sudden enlightenment. That's not revelation, at least in the technical sense of the term. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:43, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think there are folk tales of revelations happening even in Buddhism, but I won't swear to it. But I do know that revelations are a possibility even in religions that are not explicitly founded on revelation, which is what I was getting at. Researcher 17:51, 27 December 2007 (EST)

What is wrong with critism on revelations?
It is like this is conservapedia (or islamophiliapedia) Dr. Dolittle 11:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)

No it's not - we're much cooler and sexier than that. But you show up yesterday, start making all kinds of one-themed controversial edits that obviously demonstrate a desire to use this project for your own agenda, give no citations whatsoever for your claims - like the one about epilepsy - and leave a bunch of housecleaning for us to do in terms of fundamental writing skills; is it any wonder other editors are less-than-receptive to your contributions? Conservapedia would have banhammered you hours ago. PFoster 11:38, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * It is a fact that the so called revelations of Muhammed were voices in his head and that that is temperal lobe epilepsy. And there is nothing wrong to critice those "revelations". Dr. Dolittle 14:29, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * And I suppose you happen to A) be qualified to diagnose such things, and B) have spoken to him personally? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:31, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * All revelations can be explained away after the fact as mental illness. Everyone knows this--but it does nothing to detract from the reality of the faith for those who practice it.  (Personally, most of the time I consider my gods to be nothing more than constructs of freezing barbarians, but that doesn't make them less real to me.) Researcher 14:34, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Did you copy your point B) from PJR and his cre(a)ti(o)nist arguments? "evolution has not been observed, there are no witnesses, etc." ;-)Ed @Thanks SusanG for my nick 14:36, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * I think that may be stretching it somewhat. A competant doctor would never diagnose a person sight-unseen, and I think that is User:AKjeldsen's point.  Likewise, we've all had vivid dreams and some of us may interpret these dreams as divinely inspired.  This doesn't make one mentally ill.  Stile4aly 14:39, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * That is actually an area of historical study/concern, and the pros say "well, we can hypothesize, but we can never diagnose since the people are dead". This is also the case with certain physical ailments, like "did Lincoln have that syndrome that leads to very long limbs?"  Can't tell without lab tests that can't be run.  Equally to diagnosing a past revelation as a brain disorder, we could assess Jesus' resurrection as mass hysteria on the part of those who "saw" him.  Or hyopthesize that he did not die on the cross, and merely recovered in that cave.  But in the absence of the ability to test these ideas, they remain nothing more than random ideas. human  14:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Indeed, and often cross into outright pseudohistory. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 14:52, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * I see what you did there, AK. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * I did something? [[Image:Th_unsure.gif]] Was it something clever? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Isn't pseudohistory your pet series? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
 * I have no idea what you're talking about. [[Image:Shakinghead.gif]] Thanks and godspeed. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)