Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Divine Revelation?

Recommended Posts

In another thread that when down the track of some discussion on Buddhism, it was raised that:

"this idea of avoiding others and leaving everything up to divine revelation has no self-correcting mechanism.  That's a fault.  It works for picking out a spiritual mattress to nap on but not much else".

This comment to me would seem to suggest that the Divine can't be trusted, that it is incapable of revealing itself directly to a person and that the only way a person can trust any such revelation is be confirming it with somebody's else's idea of divine revelation.

Whilst I don't consider revelation to necessarily be divine in a theistic sense, I do think that people can/do/should experience revelation on their own and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation.

Do we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's? Should one's personal revelation be considered lazy if it doesn't meet expectations of other people's revelation?  Is divine revelation even possible for somebody who may avoid others?  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PaulS said:

In another thread that when down the track of some discussion on Buddhism, it was raised that:

"this idea of avoiding others and leaving everything up to divine revelation has no self-correcting mechanism.  That's a fault.  It works for picking out a spiritual mattress to nap on but not much else".

This comment to me would seem to suggest that the Divine can't be trusted, that it is incapable of revealing itself directly to a person and that the only way a person can trust any such revelation is be confirming it with somebody's else's idea of divine revelation.

Whilst I don't consider revelation to necessarily be divine in a theistic sense, I do think that people can/do/should experience revelation on their own and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation.

Do we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's? Should one's personal revelation be considered lazy if it doesn't meet expectations of other people's revelation?  Is divine revelation even possible for somebody who may avoid others?  

I think we always need to attempt to discern if a revelation is valid or if it is a mistaken reflection of self/psychosis.  The revelation of Do in the Heaven's Gate cult is an example of a revelation in need of discernment.  Contrast that with Crick's dream revelation of the double helix structure of DNA and I think it's obvious one can fairly judge Crick's revelation as superior to Do's.

The Wesleyan quadralateral is one method which can be modified and applied more broadly than Christianity.

1) Is the revelation consistent with tradition?

2) Is the revelation consistent with Scripture?

3) Is the revelation consistent with reason?

4) Is the revelation consistent with experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, PaulS said:

This ..... to me would seem to suggest that the Divine can't be trusted, that it is incapable of revealing itself directly to a person and that the only way a person can trust any such revelation is be confirming it with somebody's else's idea of divine revelation.

Whilst I don't consider revelation to necessarily be divine in a theistic sense, I do think that people can/do/should experience revelation on their own and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation.

Do we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's? Should one's personal revelation be considered lazy if it doesn't meet expectations of other people's revelation?  Is divine revelation even possible for somebody who may avoid others?  

 

I don't see it that the Divine can't be trusted or is incapable of revealing itself to a person. Rather it is the reverse; it is what we are capable of, the way we learn and interact in the world that is the issue. We exist and come to be in time and space and Being 'reveals itSelf' in and through being(s) in history.  There is the Self-revelaing (giving) of Being to Humanity but it is accomplished in a way that truly respects and allows man to be free to say Yes or No and then assume the responsibility of 'creating' his/her humanity. 

This seems to be our modus operandi but I do allow that one can begin to perceive the Divine but, although more apparent, it is still, always mediated through creation.  One would have to assume that a 'direct revelation' by Being/Reality/the Divine/God to man would be so overwhelming that all freedom of choice and responsibility for one's life would be rendered obsolete. 

So, I disagree and do not believe people experience revelation on their own (as the poet said, no man is an island) for no man is truly on their own. And people definitely need to compare or share their 'revelation' because the world seems to have had too many people who think they just had a one-on one with the Divine and some seem to be definitely off the chart, steering to the edge. 

We live in community (we don't or shouldn't avoid others) so, I say, share your 'revelation,' compare your 'revelation' - let it see the light of day for if it is true it should speak to others. If it doesn't, it wasn't. But even with this, I believe such revelation is not from the Divine to the human but, rather, the human'insight' into the Divine. The Divine is  always present, always self-giving, always self- revealing all we need is to develop (with the help of others)  the eyes to see.

As always, musings.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, some revelations it seems can be tested by the individual receiving it without looking for confirmation from others. If it is true, it will come to pass. I am speaking of revelations that are harmless to one self and others and are capable of verification by a simple act of faith. I have examples of experiences in my own life that have proved useful and were an answer to prayers that needed to be acted upon to verify.

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JosephM said:

To me, some revelations it seems can be tested by the individual receiving it without looking for confirmation from others. If it is true, it will come to pass. I am speaking of revelations that are harmless to one self and others and are capable of verification by a simple act of faith. I have examples of experiences in my own life that have proved useful and were an answer to prayers that needed to be acted upon to verify.

Joseph

Can you give an example of such a revelation? I ask, because with the mention of "if it comes to pass' it seems to suggest information.  The idea of revelation as providing information is one that is still believed in Christianity and, I believe, becomes a stumbling block as such revelations become or are captured in creeds and doctrines that should be accepted. If the request is too personal, please ignore the request.

The idea of an answer to a prayer also seems to suggest a theism of sorts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem,

I was without a job in the early 80's and wanted to get a job preferably with a company close to where i lived called Proctor and Gamble. However i would take any job at the time. I had applied at P&G but was told that they required a Ciollege degree for Software engineers of which i didn't even have experience at the time.  Anyway, i was reading a verse in the NT (Mark 11:23) and suddenly i had a revelation. I could see that the mountain spoken of was not a mountain but an obstacle in my way and so i prayed believing in my heart that God would get me a job, even better than my last one and i spoke to any obstacles and commanded them to be cast into the sea and counted it done knowing inside it was. I waited for a response being thankful as if i already received the answer (which i hadn't at least yet to my knowlege). Anyway to make it short, I woke up the next morning to a voice that my wife didn't hear but i did as clear as a bell. It revealed to me to call XXXXXX at P&G. Right away i witnessed my thought saying you already talked to him and he said they couldn't hire you because of no degree. (they like Purdue graduates and high school only here). Wait i said to myself, i heard a voice for sure and i am going to do what it revealed to me regardless of that thought otherwise.  I called not knowing what to say  other than greeting and he remembered me and told me the same thing as last so i said "there must be something you can do" and i shut up and there was silence for xxsec and i got he job making more than i ever had and the rest is history

Answer doesn't have to be theistic. The universe / Creation / Ground of Being responds to its creatures. There is no separation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Burl said:

The Wesleyan quadralateral is one method which can be modified and applied more broadly than Christianity.

1) Is the revelation consistent with tradition?

2) Is the revelation consistent with Scripture?

3) Is the revelation consistent with reason?

4) Is the revelation consistent with experience?

How would any divine revelation have measured up against this method before scripture existed, before traditions had become established?  

Additionally, Christian and Buddhist traditions are no more than 3,000 years old which is a mere blip on the scale of human existence.  They may be our current direction but as there were different traditions and experience in the past, so also I expect there will be in the future.

Does revelation have to be consistent with experience - what if the experience is dated and a new revelation is required - something outside of the square to to speak?  Is it ignored because it seems too 'outlandish', because it doesn't align with current reason and experience?  It would seem to me that many immensely beneficial changes to mankind have come about precisely because they have gone against so called established reason and tradition.

I agree that revelation may be a delusion and my take on Heaven's Gate would probably be the same as yours.  However history is replete with examples of people who came up with revelations/ideas way outside the boundaries of normal, that went totally against the current thinking and experience, and these people were ridiculed, ostracised, and even executed.  Yet later they were found to be 'right' and reason, tradition and experience took a new direction. 

So by who's measure is revelation right or wrong?  And maybe my revelation doesn't suit some, but suits others?  Who says revelation has to be a one size fits all individuals.

Edited by PaulS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not a litmus test.  It is a hermneutic; a framework for productively arranging arguments for and against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burl said:

The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is not a litmus test.  It is a hermneutic; a framework for productively arranging arguments for and against.

Yes, I can see it's a framework, but it would seem to be one that might not necessarily have much applicability if it's cornerstone measures are called into question (i.e. tradition, scripture, reason and experience).  All of these are subjective or open to different interpretations at the time of assessment.  So I'm not sure how it actually helps determine divine revelation unless one chooses to interpret scripture, tradition, experience and reason a certain way.  Then it would seem the revelation has to configure to the model rather than the model determining the authenticity of the revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Yes, I can see it's a framework, but it would seem to be one that might not necessarily have much applicability if it's cornerstone measures are called into question (i.e. tradition, scripture, reason and experience).  All of these are subjective or open to different interpretations at the time of assessment.  So I'm not sure how it actually helps determine divine revelation unless one chooses to interpret scripture, tradition, experience and reason a certain way.  Then it would seem the revelation has to configure to the model rather than the model determining the authenticity of the revelation.

Millions of Christians find it helpful.  

You have changed your mind and now agree that all divine revelation is not valid, and that all divine revalations are equally useful. Are you ready to start making some constructive criticism and put a few suggestions on the table?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Burl said:

Millions of Christians find it helpful.  

You have changed your mind and now agree that all divine revelation is not valid, and that all divine revalations are equally useful. Are you ready to start making some constructive criticism and put a few suggestions on the table?

I don't know how you think I have changed my mind and now say that all divine revelation is not valid.  That is not the case.  I have never said all revelation is valid or not, but have only argued that one shouldn't 'dismiss' another's revelation just because it doesn't measure up to what one thinks is acceptable 'criteria'.  It would seem to me that often revelation or criticism of revelation is in the eye of the beholder and neither a case for or against can necessarily be established, particularly at the time.

I 'suspect' that revelation can be invalid or mistaken (perhaps such as the Heaven's gate example you gave) but for all I know their souls could also be flying around right now across the universe in a spaceship and their revelation is indeed correct. I'm comfortable not judging their revelation either way.  I would however be prepared to say that such a revelation, for me personally, does not fit.

What I am also saying is that the framework you posited seems to me to have many shortcomings.  That being the case (whether millions of Christians find it useful for them or not) I am expressing an opinion that seems contrary to yours that people can experience revelation on their own (as perhaps in Joseph's case above) and do not necessarily need to compare it against other's view of revelation.  Furthermore that it seems to me that we run the risk of bias if we need to compare our revelation to somebody else's idea of what makes revelation relevant or not.

Constructive criticism?  Yes - let people have/experience whatever revelation they believe they have.  If it harms no other then leave them alone.  Don't insult them or belittle their revelations because you say their method has no self-correcting mechanism unless you can point out a 100% accurate example of a method for validating such revelations.  Short of that, I was simply putting it out there to see what others may think about 'validating' revelation.  I don't pretend to have all the answers.

My suggestion would be along the lines of Thormas' suggestion- that is, as I understand it, that revelations can be tested in a community and we can see if they benefit mankind or not, irrespective if they go against standing tradition or scripture.  In some cases that might mean not jumping to conclusion about their 'wrong or right-ness' but just let the revelation be, mull it over, kick it around, but be open minded.  Clearly history has demonstrated many revelations that have been refuted too quickly, only to be found out later to be accurate or useful.

 

.

 

Edited by PaulS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JosephM said:

No problem,

I was without a job in the early 80's and wanted to get a job preferably with a company close to where i lived called Proctor and Gamble. However i would take any job at the time. I had applied at P&G but was told that they required a Ciollege degree for Software engineers of which i didn't even have experience at the time.  Anyway, i was reading a verse in the NT (Mark 11:23) and suddenly i had a revelation. I could see that the mountain spoken of was not a mountain but an obstacle in my way and so i prayed believing in my heart that God would get me a job, even better than my last one and i spoke to any obstacles and commanded them to be cast into the sea and counted it done knowing inside it was. I waited for a response being thankful as if i already received the answer (which i hadn't at least yet to my knowlege). Anyway to make it short, I woke up the next morning to a voice that my wife didn't hear but i did as clear as a bell. It revealed to me to call XXXXXX at P&G. Right away i witnessed my thought saying you already talked to him and he said they couldn't hire you because of no degree. (they like Purdue graduates and high school only here). Wait i said to myself, i heard a voice for sure and i am going to do what it revealed to me regardless of that thought otherwise.  I called not knowing what to say  other than greeting and he remembered me and told me the same thing as last so i said "there must be something you can do" and i shut up and there was silence for xxsec and i got he job making more than i ever had and the rest is history

Answer doesn't have to be theistic. The universe / Creation / Ground of Being responds to its creatures. There is no separation.

Thanks Joseph. 

I actually get the revelation from reading Mark as that is the way i understand revelation: Life/Being/the Sacred calls/challenges/judges us in and through the words of men and women - and Mark was such a man. One can get, in my opinion, such insights from very, many written or spoken words both sacred and profane. 

The voice in the morning is beyond me and I am a skeptic but that is fine as I respect the report of your experience; I (and no one I have ever known) have never had such an experience. But again, I allow that much is possible. 

Again, with limited knowledge (like all of us) I just don't understand God/Being operating in this way. Not to mention, what could be seen as favoritism. I imagine many, actually countless others across history (including Jesus in the garden before his death) have prayed to Being or their God over issues even more pressing - such as health, life, even edging out a stark existence - and they would say their prayers were not answered. Now I know others can come up with ways those prayers were answered or the answer was missed but you got 'the answer and result you wanted' and they didn't. And to fall back on the inscrutable ways of God or the Universe, as some believers do, is both too easy and a bit heartless. 

Still sounds theistic to me but leaving that aside, I do believe the universe or God responds to its creatures but the response (or Presence) is continual or ever-present; it is not particular, rather it is available for or given to all and it does not discriminate. The Universe or the Sacred is always 'here' and 'calls' to us -  and waits on man/woman to hear (insight) and respond. But, I think, the call is for our growth into a full humanity (and Life), not to find things or get things or even overcome a sickness, or avoid hardship or even death. 

I can hear countless others, hearing your story, crying, "Why not me, why not us, are we not worthy, can't we have a voice speak to us, why aren't we so loved?"

To me it comes down to love, the best parent should not have favorites, they should love all equally, be there for all equally. So too with God whom the Christians call Daddy (and I mean even this in an panentheistic way). 

Again thanks for sharing on a very perplexing topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burl said:

Millions of Christians find it helpful.  

You have changed your mind and now agree that all divine revelation is not valid, and that all divine revalations are equally useful. Are you ready to start making some constructive criticism and put a few suggestions on the table?

Really, millions find it helpful? I wonder, throughout all of Christianity, how many Christians think about or even know about this.

I think Christianity has accepted that revelation is information which is then place in a doctrine and faithfulness is conditioned on acceptance (even without understanding). I think a more modern take on revelation (and one the mystics probably shared) is that revelation is the self-revealing (which is the self-giving) of God to humanity. It is not information but rather Self that is given.

Burl, your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas,

I'm sure the voice wasn't a voice that was heard outside of myself since my wife didn't hear a thing. Probably in my head but real to me. I have had dozens of experiences of which that was just one example and neither do i understand them fully nor why prayer seems to work for one but not another. I certainly don't think it is favoritism and since we all are connected i believe it is possible in all. I think the reason all do not see it regularly is because perhaps they have limited the possibilities because of preconceived beliefs? I don't purport to know. Nor do i expect others to believe in experiences i have had but i myself value any am thankful for any such experiences that i am given.

 In my example my thinking tried to rob me of the possibility but deeper within me was the assurance from the previous day that was stronger than any present doubt that would cause inaction on my part. I think we are all loved equally and any divine revelation i have received has nothing to do with being more or less worthy. As far as voices go, it seems to me it is without language and our own mind merely translates the feeling or sense we get into our own vocabulary.  There is at least , in my experience, for that moment, an indescribable certainty or 'knowing' that the thinking mind if allowed will attempt to undo but in that moment it is received there is no doubt that it comes from the very substrate of your existence/ being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, thormas said:

Really, millions find it helpful? I wonder, throughout all of Christianity, how many Christians think about or even know about this.

I think Christianity has accepted that revelation is information which is then place in a doctrine and faithfulness is conditioned on acceptance (even without understanding). I think a more modern take on revelation (and one the mystics probably shared) is that revelation is the self-revealing (which is the self-giving) of God to humanity. It is not information but rather Self that is given.

Burl, your thoughts?

Millions.  Guess how many millions before you click.   http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_methodist_in_the_world

There is a definite need to attempt to discern revelation from self-generated thought. The traditional Christian method is a council of priests ordained in apostolic succession.  I'm not saying that Methodists have the ulimate answer, but I think it is logical and flexible enough to be of practical value.

I'm waiting on other ideas, but none are forthcoming so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

I'm sure the voice wasn't a voice that was heard outside of myself since my wife didn't hear a thing. Probably in my head but real to me. I have had dozens of experiences of which that was just one example and neither do i understand them fully nor why prayer seems to work for one but not another. I certainly don't think it is favoritism and since we all are connected i believe it is possible in all. I think the reason all do not see it regularly is because perhaps they have limited the possibilities because of preconceived beliefs? I don't purport to know. Nor do i expect others to believe in experiences i have had but i myself value any am thankful for any such experiences that i am given.

 In my example my thinking tried to rob me of the possibility but deeper within me was the assurance from the previous day that was stronger than any present doubt that would cause inaction on my part. I think we are all loved equally and any divine revelation i have received has nothing to do with being more or less worthy. As far as voices go, it seems to me it is without language and our own mind merely translates the feeling or sense we get into our own vocabulary.  There is at least , in my experience, for that moment, an indescribable certainty or 'knowing' that the thinking mind if allowed will attempt to undo but in that moment it is received there is no doubt that it comes from the very substrate of your existence/ being. 

Evidence relating to experience by others is compelling.  I have not had many revelatory experiences, but when an idea is uncomfortable or against my percieved best interest or typical preferences I take notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burl said:

Millions.  Guess how many millions before you click.   http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_methodist_in_the_world

There is a definite need to attempt to discern revelation from self-generated thought. The traditional Christian method is a council of priests ordained in apostolic succession.  I'm not saying that Methodists have the ulimate answer, but I think it is logical and flexible enough to be of practical value.

I'm waiting on other ideas, but none are forthcoming so far.

Isn't that the number of Methodists rather than how many actually think, know or can recite the 4 points? 

Self-generated thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JosephM said:

Thomas,

I'm sure the voice wasn't a voice that was heard outside of myself since my wife didn't hear a thing. Probably in my head but real to me. I have had dozens of experiences of which that was just one example and neither do i understand them fully nor why prayer seems to work for one but not another. I certainly don't think it is favoritism and since we all are connected i believe it is possible in all. I think the reason all do not see it regularly is because perhaps they have limited the possibilities because of preconceived beliefs? I don't purport to know. Nor do i expect others to believe in experiences i have had but i myself value any am thankful for any such experiences that i am given.

 In my example my thinking tried to rob me of the possibility but deeper within me was the assurance from the previous day that was stronger than any present doubt that would cause inaction on my part. I think we are all loved equally and any divine revelation i have received has nothing to do with being more or less worthy. As far as voices go, it seems to me it is without language and our own mind merely translates the feeling or sense we get into our own vocabulary.  There is at least , in my experience, for that moment, an indescribable certainty or 'knowing' that the thinking mind if allowed will attempt to undo but in that moment it is received there is no doubt that it comes from the very substrate of your existence/ being. 

But if it works for some few and not all the others and is believed to be from the Universe or God, that seems like some are favored? And, I believe that is how many who don't have prayers answered feel.

I really don't think it is because of preconceived beliefs as there is an entire history of, for examples, Christians of the same (first thousand years) and different expressions, who are good people, faithful to their God and prayed like Jesus instructed. And even if there are preconceived beliefs that are problematic, seems like the Universe or God would look pass that to intention (much like the best of human beings do) and grant a few more prayers.

Again, I respect your experience and understand why you would value it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, thormas said:

But if it works for some few and not all the others and is believed to be from the Universe or God, that seems like some are favored? And, I believe that is how many who don't have prayers answered feel.

I really don't think it is because of preconceived beliefs as there is an entire history of, for examples, Christians of the same (first thousand years) and different expressions, who are good people, faithful to their God and prayed like Jesus instructed. And even if there are preconceived beliefs that are problematic, seems like the Universe or God would look pass that to intention (much like the best of human beings do) and grant a few more prayers.

Again, I respect your experience and understand why you would value it.

Thomas ,

I am persuaded that things are not as they seem and no matter what it looks like we are looking from a limited perspective so i can't be too concerned about others seeing it as favoritism when my experience convinces me it is not.. In my own experience, preconceived beliefs limit a persons experience. ie: If you believe the universe will not feed you today, you probably will not go hunting.... If you believe only bad things happen to you, why would you look for anything good?..... If you believed the world was flat, why would you sail far from shore? etc. etc.

Perhaps God doesn't look at peoples intentions because God is not a man and has arranged an order/balance by which things operate here. Perhaps sometimes our experience is our best teacher? Belief seems to me a powerful tool that can be productive or destructive. Just sayin.... Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, thormas said:

Isn't that the number of Methodists rather than how many actually think, know or can recite the 4 points? 

Self-generated thought?

Just trying to hold up my end of the conversation.  I have nothing to prove, and hopefully sharing real world information and not just spouting off personal opinion.  

It is a rational way of approaching the issue.  Joseph's evaluating the observations of others is a part of reason and experience is a part of it.

Still waiting on your thoughts.  Reaction and criticism is fine, but it is a far cry from putting your own thoughts on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Burl, I don't know what you're waiting for.

I wasn't looking for proof, just making the point that I don't think many Christians think about revelation. 

I have given my thoughts on revelation, what other thoughts are you waiting on? If I can know, I will try to respond.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thormas said:

Sorry Burl, I don't know what you're waiting for.

I wasn't looking for proof, just making the point that I don't think many Christians think about revelation. 

I have given my thoughts on revelation, what other thoughts are you waiting on? If I can know, I will try to respond.

 

How does one discern revelation from cognition?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Burl said:

How does one discern revelation from cognition?  

To me, cognition is more related to thinking or thought through experience or the senses. Revelation on the other-hand seems to just suddenly be there, sort of a knowing without thought. It seems to me to be given rather than achieved through ones own thoughts. More like an inspiration than reasoning or thought. There is a feeling and sense perception but i perceive the senses are stimulated by the revelation rather than causing it but i really don't know for certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joseph, 

I agree our perspective is limited but I think we should be concerned how others see it (the appearance of favoritism) - if we (which I thought, in part, this site was about) are concerned about (to echo Spong) 'charting a new Christianity.' I allow, that others can hear such stories of personal revelations and, not having their own revelation, in spite of fervent prayer, come to believe, as others have in past times, that prayer and revelation work this way - but not for them: something is wrong with them.

Many of these believers have the 'right' notions, for example, faithfulness and trust and follow that with a prayer, like yours - but nothing. Many faithful people, believing that good things can happen, have looked and prayer for the good (be it health, a job, a good cancer check up, successful chemo) - and nothing. Seems talk of preconceived notions and limited perspective would fall flat in trying to help another understand.

You did throw me here when you said. "Perhaps God doesn't look at peoples intentions because God is not a man and has arranged an order/balance by which things operate here" which seems to be at odds with an earlier statement, "believing in my heart that God would get me a job."

I do agree that "perhaps sometimes our experience is our best teacher" and that " belief seems to me a powerful tool that can be productive or destructive." 

 

Please take this as it is intended: I respect your experience, although it is foreign to me, but I am trying to understand/explain revelation in a way that makes sense to people and is neither a hinderance to their belief in God nor their sense of worthiness.

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go with Gregory Baum and a former Professor I had in college. For the former, "God (revelation) is what happens to man on the way to becoming human." Man achieves consciousness because someone (for example, his mother) summoned him as a baby. For Baum, consciousness must be woken; it is called forth through dialogue - being addressed and responding. It is God/the Word that awakens and calls man.  

The Professor is even more to the point, "we are wakened as cognition, ontic cognition (the awareness and ability to 'grasp' being)."

So I understand revelation not as rare moments or interactions, rather it is the eternal way that God is with man and it is the very possibility of cognition and being.  I believe there can be (as more traditionally understood) 'revealing or revelatory moments' when upon being addressed/called in dialogue (be it a conversation, reading, listening to music, a lecture, watching a movie, being quiet, reflecting on something) we have an 'insight' or a new awareness that can carry us forward and enables us to become more. 

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×