Information icon.svg Survey Closing: The RationalWiki Community Survey 2017 will close this Friday, November 24th. See the results.

Talk:Revelation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png

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[edit]

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). --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 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. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 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?[edit]

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? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 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. humanUser talk:Human 14:45, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Indeed, and often cross into outright pseudohistory. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:52, 28 December 2007 (EST)
I see what you did there, AK. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I did something? Th unsure.gif Was it something clever? --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:49, 28 December 2007 (EST)
Isn't pseudohistory your pet series? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
I have no idea what you're talking about. Shakinghead.gif Thanks and godspeed. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 15:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Critism on revelations[edit]

"Non christian, judaist and islamic scholars mention that those so called revelations are othen in contradiction whith each other. Also within the religions itself. So Allah should have punished a jewish fishermans village for not worshipping the sabbath by changing them in pigs and apes. But nowhere in the same Qu'ran can be found that believers are forbidden to work at any day of the weak. Also the so called revelations can't be true. Like that all people living on earth should be inbreed from Noach's three sons. And while God or Allah should have been communicating at a very difficult way to Paul and Muhammed (by voices in their head) in the very same stories of those "prophets" God simply talked to Adam, Eve, Kain and Noach. Without any angel." - this was reverted, I copied it here.

What is wrong isn't really the idea you are trying to write. It's that it is written and spelled so badly no one would ever want to try to repair it. The first word you typed ("Critism") is spelled wrong. You might try cleaning it up and reposting it in complete sentences, with appropriate capitalizations, etc. Otherwise, when we see stuff like this get posted, about five words in it will get reverted, because no one wants to read a mess like this. Thank you for your efforts, though. I would suggest having a friend help you by proofreading your draft before you post it, or post it here on the talk page and try to explain what you mean carefully. humanUser talk:Human 15:02, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I know at least once you said that English is not your native language. We'd be happy to help you with it. Researcher 15:05, 28 December 2007 (EST)
IMMA PARSIN THIS PASSAGE! Snark at the content is in <sup></sup> tags:

Scholars, especially those who are not adherents to any Abrahamic faith, observeShouldn't be too hard to find, but specific citations would be nice that alleged revelations often contradict one other, as do larger amounts of religious doctrine based on them. As such, Allah should have punished a non-Sabbath-honouring Jewish villagelolwut? This really is weird. It cannot, however, be found in the Koran that believers are forbidden to work on any day of the week. It is also arguable that revelations by their very nature cannot be true, at least discounting divine intervention - The following isn't a revelation, but still- such as all people living on earth having been born from only Noah's three sons. Furthermore, they seem inconsistent - while Paul and Mohammad heard voices in their head, God simply talked to Adam, Eve, Cain, and Noah, while others, such as Mary and Zechariah, received messages via angelsHow, exactly, does one hear someone talking without hearing voices in their head?

Well that's the best I can do, although I must confess I still don't quite get it.-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Thoughts on This[edit]

This book seems to go into great detail on Daniel and Revelation, it also goes into great historical detail http://understanding-daniel-revelation.com thoughts? (warning, might trigger catholics)--The RW Ninja 19:02, 2 September 2017 (UTC)