Is Revelation a good way to "Know" anything?

[anevilpetingzoo]

In this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3863171#post3863171) thread, my fellow Reverend claims that Revaluation is the best way to get (in this case a specific type of) knowledge.

To me, this is the antithesis of science. Is the idea of god, and the religious claims of billions totally untestable and unverifiable by empirical evidence? If not, where does that evidence lead?

If someone is crazy, we take there revelations as total fabrications, yet if a person said that God/Jesus/Mary/Vishnu etc were behind the revelation, they might even become a saint!

To the resident theists; do you think that revelation is a good way to find out Truth? Can you ever discount the strong possibility that it is your overactive imagination or some other totally natural cause?

To my fellow non-theists; does the idea of Revealed Truth scare you as much as it does me?

[EarlOfLade]

Revelation: Listen to all the shit I just made up! (and pay me $20 for the right to listen to it!)

[motorhead]

I'm taking it by revelation you mean a message or communication of some type from a supernatural being. There are many claims that this type of communication has happened in human history but how does one prove without a doubt that their communication is truly from a supernatural being? Can people even agree on the criteria that establishes if some communication from a supernatural being?

[Brother Daniel]

Can people even agree on the criteria that establishes if some communication from a supernatural being?
A necessary (but not sufficient) feature of a genuine supernatural revelation (coming from an entity that (a) understands human limitations and (b) is benevolent) is that the message comes with absolutely no moral pressure to believe that it represents a genuine supernatural revelation.

[Vitalstatistix]

There's supposed to be pills for it, I understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith-sufferer

[anevilpetingzoo]

Think about the ramifications of this though.
"I do not care what evidence you may show me, I have evidence that was revealed to me directly by God!"
If you take that way of thinking and apply it to various situations, it get you many results: From ID to the Spanish Inquisition.

[Anat]

My 8 year old daughter used such arguments for a while. Whenever the rules of a game were not to her liking she would claim revelations from mysterious giants (inspired by Roald Dahl's The BFG) that told her the rules need to be changed.

[Alethias]

Revelation would be a great source of knowledge if it actually worked. And the first person to get it to provably work as part of a provable, repeatable scientific experiment richly merits the one million bucks that James Randi wants to give them.

[Asha'man]

It has always seemed to me, that if the supernatural existed, we cannot possibly know anything about it via observation. If we can learn about it using the fundamental tool of science, observation, then we are talking about something natural, not supernatural.

Therefore, to actually know something about the supernatural would require some form of revelation.

However, I don't believe we've ever actually had any real revelations. Books like the Bible, though they claim to be inspired, demonstrate an astounding ignorance of how the world actually works. Most people claiming 'revealed' knowledge are provably delusional, and their knowledge never seems to be anything special.

Further, even if someone actually received a revelation from a genuine supernatural source, how would we establish that the source was trustworthy? We cannot possibly verify the accuracy of the information, and trusting that the source must be honest is the fastest way to get yourself eaten by a demon from the 7th circle.

So, in practice, revelation's don't happen, and we couldn't trust them if they did.

[Baal]

Personally, if something was revealed to me by a supernatural being, and I knew the being was supernatural and I was not insane, I would believe it. Of course, such a solid, provable occurrence is highly unlikely.

[motorhead]

Personally, if something was revealed to me by a supernatural being, and I knew the being was supernatural and I was not insane, I would believe it. Of course, such a solid, provable occurrence is highly unlikely.

But how would such an occurence take place? Would the supernatural appear in some ghost like form? Or would it be a persistent voice in your head? How would you know either of these things wasn't something generated by your own mind?

[moonwatcher]

But how would such an occurence take place? Would the supernatural appear in some ghost like form? Or would it be a persistent voice in your head? How would you know either of these things wasn't something generated by your own mind?

I'll give an example of what I would take as sufficient evidence that a reasonable person would consider supernatural revelation the source:

Imagine, God decides to release the souls of the dead to visit earth one day per year (on their birthdays). They get to appear in insubstantial but visible form to friends and family. They can tell them all about what the afterlife is like.

Such appearances, coming in such vast numbers, could not be reasonably attributed to hallucination, even mass hallucination, without calling our sensory apparatus itself into question and would be more than sufficient to demonstrate the existence of an afterlife (and would show, incidently, which religion, if any, was true, since we'd all have reports from people in the position to know).

That's just one example. With a little imagination we could all come up with other examples of what would constitute solid empirical evidence for the truth of the claims of religion.

[TonyBozo]

The scientific method is the best approach, and the most successful system, we humans have currently devised to produce reliable knowledge about the objective universe. "Reliable" knowledge can be defined as "knowledge having a high degree of probability of being correct because its veracity has been justified by a reliable, time-tested method.

"Revealed knowledge" coming from a voice within one's head is no better than a guess, and these guesses are always "defined" as correct by the self-decieved. And isn't it curious that this "revealed knowledge" always agrees with the personal preferences of the one posessing the revelation? I guess the delusional are just funny that way :D .

[trendkill]

Actually revelation can be a valid way to learn things, and everybody uses it. For instance, you ask someone where the car keys are and then you take their word for it when they reveal their location, because you trust them. Obviously basing your entire worldview, belief in miracles, and such on revelation is overdoing it just a tad. Given the propensity of people to lie, make up fantastic stories, or to believe things because they need to believe them rather than because they're true, I don't think you can reasonably just take someone's word for it on such matters.

[Stumpjumper]

I think it depends upon what you want to know...

[Tigers!]

Actually revelation can be a valid way to learn things, and everybody uses it. For instance, you ask someone where the car keys are and then you take their word for it when they reveal their location, because you trust them.
At last a modicum of common sense in this thread:)
As noted revelation is a valid way of passing on information. In fact we can talk it further than the poster has. The only way that all the posters in this thread have been able to tell what they to say is by, (gasp) revelation!
However due to the comments on this thread I have a problem - How can I believe what they have said? There is no way for me to prove that they were not lying when they wrote the words that they did. Perhaps they are being deceptive? Maybe I should not believe anything they say or write? They could be malevolent and out to deceive us? Maybe they're insane? I don't know since relevation is such an unreliable means of communication.
Makes it hard to communicate wouldn't you say?

[Mesa Mike]

A necessary (but not sufficient) feature of a genuine supernatural revelation (coming from an entity that (a) understands human limitations and (b) is benevolent) is that the message comes with absolutely no moral pressure to believe that it represents a genuine supernatural revelation.

The Bible itself tells us not to trust just anything claiming to be special revelation.
1 Jn 4:1
Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

If the revelation can't be tested against what's already known (either in scripture if it concerns the metaphysical, or observed facts in the natural world if of a physical nature), then it is suspect.

I admit that if you're not a Christian, testing against the scripture probably doesn't impress you much either...

[AthenaAwakened]

Is Revelation a good way to know anything?

Depends on what you want to know. When I realized that I did not love my Ex anymore, that was a revelation (or should I say an awakening) and an excellent way of knowing.

Peace ;)

[Brother Daniel]

The Bible itself tells us not to trust just anything claiming to be special revelation.
1 Jn 4:1
And how does this apostle treat those who disagree with him? He accuses them of "calling God a liar" (1 Jn 5:10). Besides being the ultimate rhetorical stinkbomb, that's a good example of the kind of "moral pressure" I was talking about, and a dead giveaway that the revelation in question is not a genuine one (from a benevolent god).

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Is one to suppose that reasoning of the natural will result in complete and inerrant knowledge of the supernatural and supranatural? While the natural contains evidences of the supernatural, revelation serves as an appropriate and needed testimony and guide. While this does not deny the possibility or reality of false revelations, it does affirm the value of revealed truth.

[Alethias]

Is one to suppose that reasoning of the natural will result in complete and inerrant knowledge of the supernatural and supranatural? If one were to suppose that, one would have to first suppose that there is such a thing as either the supranatural or supernatural. By the way, supranatural?? While I'm familiar with most common concepts of the supernatural, what do you mean by supranatural? In what way is it distinct from supernatural?While the natural contains evidences of the supernatural,Just because you and people like you say it's so, it's automagically true, right?revelation serves as an appropriate and needed testimony and guide. well, no.While this does not deny the possibility or reality of false revelations, it does affirm the value of revealed truth.If you say that there is such a thing as false revelation, even from your perspective revelation is unreliable. For it to be considered reliable, you'd need to quantify what makes some revelation false and other true. Sorry, but I sincerely doubt your ability to do that. Of course, that is in part because revelation is a myth, whether you call it false or true.

Alethias.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

If one were to suppose that, one would have to first suppose that there is such a thing as either the supranatural or supernatural. By the way, supranatural?? While I'm familiar with most common concepts of the supernatural, what do you mean by supranatural? In what way is it distinct from supernatural?
Alethias.

supernatural - esisting or occuring outside the normal experience or knowledge of man

supra - 'above' (not just alongside of)

Just because you and people like you say it's so, it's automagically true, right?
well, no.If you say that there is such a thing as false revelation, even from your perspective revelation is unreliable. For it to be considered reliable, you'd need to quantify what makes some revelation false and other true.

Abuse of a good thing does not neglect the proper use.

Sorry, but I sincerely doubt your ability to do that. Of course, that is in part because revelation is a myth, whether you call it false or true.

Do I sense a predisposition against revelation.... even though you have no grounds for proving for or against its existence?

Think it strange, or just a coincidence, that the Scripture speaks of those with such a predisposition? Does not the fact that revelation describes you just the way you are, and perhaps even better than you knew yourself, have anything to say, or that might lead you to think perhaps there is more to this revelation than I previously thought. Perhaps I should read it more intently and continuously and see what else it has to say, especially since it says "But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it - he will be blessed in what he does."

[anevilpetingzoo]

At last a modicum of common sense in this thread:)
As noted revelation is a valid way of passing on information. In fact we can talk it further than the poster has. The only way that all the posters in this thread have been able to tell what they to say is by, (gasp) revelation!
However due to the comments on this thread I have a problem - How can I believe what they have said? There is no way for me to prove that they were not lying when they wrote the words that they did. Perhaps they are being deceptive? Maybe I should not believe anything they say or write? They could be malevolent and out to deceive us? Maybe they're insane? I don't know since relevation is such an unreliable means of communication.
Makes it hard to communicate wouldn't you say?
I am really talking more about the theological definition of the word. Using the above reasoning on the other definitions is truly nonsense.



Abuse of a good thing does not neglect the proper use.



Do I sense a predisposition against revelation.... even though you have no grounds for proving for or against its existence?

So, please Mr. Muse, tell us how to tell the difference, or how you tell the difference between revelation by God and revelation by his close second in power Satan spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind.

Let me guess: as Mesa Mike put it, gage it by scripture. Well fine, what if the revelation was that the will of God deemed it necessary for you to enforce all of the laws of the old testament? Would you start beating your children with a rod or stoning people?

[TheBear]

Can you imagine applying this notion to all fields of inquiry? :D

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

...So, please Mr. Muse, tell us how to tell the difference, or how you tell the difference between revelation by God and revelation by his close second in power Satan spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind.



Glad you ask, and want to know...

On one level, you have put the ultimate responsibility in the wrong place. God, not man, not only has chosen to reveal himself, but enables man to know him and to discern the difference. HE gives man eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand... and like a sheep - who recognizes his shepherds voice, he will not follow another but follow the voice he knows. Now, the sheep still use their ears, still use their reason, etc., but the difference is found in that they belong to the shepherd and recognize his voice. Certainly, man must use his eyes, use his ears, use his reason, etc., (and in doing so can detect many shortcomings and inconsistencies in that which is false), but the difference is found in whether or not he belongs to the shepherd and whether he recognizes his voice.

Let me illustrate: I have a friend from Burma who has gone to NYC to plant a church among Burmese Americans. He, among all the Asian people in NYC was wondering how he was going to figure out and establish contact with Burmese people. He decided one way to do this was to walk down the street speaking Burmese (which he himself recognized might seem strange) but when he did so, those who were Burmese recognized the language and were drawn to him. Now others might argue - there's no such thing as Burmese, or there are those who speak French, and Spanish, so how can you tell Burmese, ... but those who belong to Burma not only can verify the truth, and distinguish the difference, but when in a field of differences are drawn though the voice.

Let me guess: as Mesa Mike put it, gage it by scripture. Well fine, what if the revelation was that the will of God deemed it necessary for you to enforce all of the laws of the old testament? Would you start beating your children with a rod or stoning people?

Are you suggesting that there IS a some sense of moral law implanted in man where he can distinguish? GREAT! I agree! Now, the question is, where did that come from? (not from evolution, ... or did the big bang produce intelligence and morality?)

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Is revelation a good way to know anything?

Can you imagine applying this notion to all fields of inquiry? :D

Can you imagine "Since some cannot distinguish between that which is true and that which is false, we must therefore assert there is no such thing as the truth.... applying to all fields of inquiry?

Or, does it make sense just to apply it in the field of religion?

[anevilpetingzoo]

Glad you ask, and want to know...

On one level, you have put the ultimate responsibility in the wrong place. God, not man, not only has chosen to reveal himself, but enables man to know him and to discern the difference. HE gives man eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand... and like a sheep - who recognizes his shepherds voice, he will not follow another but follow the voice he knows. Now, the sheep still use their ears, still use their reason, etc., but the difference is found in that they belong to the shepherd and recognize his voice. Certainly, man must use his eyes, use his ears, use his reason, etc., (and in doing so can detect many shortcomings and inconsistencies in that which is false), but the difference is found in whether or not he belongs to the shepherd and whether he recognizes his voice.
Wow Mr. Muse, sound to me like the Devil really has you fooled! You are using puny things like your eyes and ears to see and hear through his deceptions. If Eve had only had your keen insights we could have prevented all of these problems.
I wonder if your ears eyes and reason led you down a path of Atheism, would you dismiss that? Oh wait, your reality checks only apply to supernatural things, not to real things like evolution.


Let me illustrate: I have a friend from Burma who has gone to NYC to plant a church among Burmese Americans. He, among all the Asian people in NYC was wondering how he was going to figure out and establish contact with Burmese people. He decided one way to do this was to walk down the street speaking Burmese (which he himself recognized might seem strange) but when he did so, those who were Burmese recognized the language and were drawn to him. Now others might argue - there's no such thing as Burmese, or there are those who speak French, and Spanish, so how can you tell Burmese, ... but those who belong to Burma not only can verify the truth, and distinguish the difference, but when in a field of differences are drawn though the voice.

How easy would it be for me to learn Burmese and then proceed to trick all of the above people? It would be hard, but far from impossible, I do have a gift with language. But if your devil or any evil god/spirit/ghost for that matter it would be EASY to trick stupid humans.


Are you suggesting that there IS a some sense of moral law implanted in man where he can distinguish? GREAT! I agree! Now, the question is, where did that come from? (not from evolution, ... or did the big bang produce intelligence and morality?)
Mr. Muse, this discussion is best left to another thread. Suffice it to say that I do think it came from evolution and natural selection.

[TheBear]

Can you imagine "Since some cannot distinguish between that which is true and that which is false, we must therefore assert there is no such thing as the truth.... applying to all fields of inquiry?To the OP's point - this business of 'personal revelation', as the mechanism of the discovery process, is absurd. You wouldn't see a physician who refused to examine you, but instead, operated on 'personal revelations'. You would laugh at the notion that the theory of relativity was nothing more than 'personal revelations' of Einstein. You would be infuriated if you went to the bank and the teller said something like, "I had a personal revelation that you are not to make any bank withdrawals today." You would probably scoff at anyone who says, "On personal revelation, I know the winner of next Sunday's football game."

In all areas of life, you see how ridiculous this notion is. Yet, when it comes to your religious beliefs, all bets are off. You suspend the rules. That, in and of itself, says it all.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

To the OP's point - this business of 'personal revelation', as the mechanism of the discovery process, is absurd. You wouldn't see a physician who refused to examine you, but instead, operated on 'personal revelations'. You would laugh at the notion that the theory of relativity was nothing more than 'personal revelations' of Einstein. You would be infuriated if you went to the bank and the teller said something like, "I had a personal revelation that you are not to make any bank withdrawals today." You would probably scoff at anyone who says, "On personal revelation, I know the winner of next Sunday's football game."

In all areas of life, you see how ridiculous this notion is. Yet, when it comes to your religious beliefs, all bets are off. You suspend the rules. That, in and of itself, says it all.

On the contrary...

1. On one level, is there not a difference between discussion of the supernatural and the natural. Your example fails to distinguish between the two.

2. Einstein's discovery certainly came through revelation. That's what all science is... discovery and analysis of that which has been revealed. Not only that but this discovery was revealed first personally to Einstein. (Wouldn't you think it silly for Einstein to have said "I've discovered such and such" and for the world to have said we don't believe in personal revelations. You can't know anything that we don't know.... and gone on in denial and ignorance. This being the case given the natural world, how much more when it concerns the supernatural).

[TheBear]

On the contrary...

1. On one level, is there not a difference between discussion of the supernatural and the natural. Your example fails to distinguish between the two.That's the difference between you and me, I guess. I don't juxtapose or conflate the natural world with the supernatural world.....the real world with the faith world. And it's not that the supernatural world hasn't been given a looking over. The problem is - it fails using the same standards and reasoning, given to the doctor who never examines his patients, but instead relies on 'personal revelations' to diagnose each of them.

Were your parents Christian?

[Lixma]

God's order to Moses to slaughter men, women and children came via revelation. Presumably he had to relay this command to his followers.

Imagine yourself as one of those followers. Your leader has come to you and revealed that God wants you to take part in the slaughter of 'every living thing' so that your tribe may possess the land of your enemies.

What is your response?

Do you follow?

Do you tell him to piss off?

On what basis (or by what objective standard haha) do you determine whether this is God's revelation or not?

[angela2]

To the OP's point - this business of 'personal revelation', as the mechanism of the discovery process, is absurd. You wouldn't see a physician who refused to examine you, but instead, operated on 'personal revelations'. You would laugh at the notion that the theory of relativity was nothing more than 'personal revelations' of Einstein. You would be infuriated if you went to the bank and the teller said something like, "I had a personal revelation that you are not to make any bank withdrawals today." You would probably scoff at anyone who says, "On personal revelation, I know the winner of next Sunday's football game."

In all areas of life, you see how ridiculous this notion is. Yet, when it comes to your religious beliefs, all bets are off. You suspend the rules. That, in and of itself, says it all.
Hi Bear :wave:

I don't intend to defend Rev in any way, shape or form but... All the example you gave lend themselves to factual evidence. How about, "I know that my daughter loves me?" Yes, I have some evidence, but it's not conclusive and could even be deceptive.

[TheBear]

Hey, Angela! :wave:

Nice to see you. :)

Hi Bear :wave:

I don't intend to defend Rev in any way, shape or form but... All the example you gave lend themselves to factual evidence. How about, "I know that my daughter loves me?" Yes, I have some evidence, but it's not conclusive and could even be deceptive.We're not talking about emotions. We're talking about 'personal revelations'.

[Vitalstatistix]

Hi Bear :wave:

I don't intend to defend Rev in any way, shape or form but... All the example you gave lend themselves to factual evidence. How about, "I know that my daughter loves me?" Yes, I have some evidence, but it's not conclusive and could even be deceptive.That one also lends itself to factual evidence. I'm sure if you search on google you'll find a lot of reputable articles about brain chemistry & love.

[Hrvoje Butkovic]

I think that the value of revelations lies in their capacity to effect positive change on one's life. I'm not sure that it makes any difference who or what their origin is, or even whether it's natural or supernatural.

[angela2]

That one also lends itself to factual evidence. I'm sure if you search on google you'll find a lot of reputable articles about brain chemistry & love.
Is the evidence conclusive?

[angela2]

Hey, Angela! :wave:

Nice to see you. :)

We're not talking about emotions. We're talking about 'personal revelations'.
Ah, I see. So it must remain a category unto itself. Makes it easier that way.

[TheBear]

Is the evidence conclusive?You can rejoice in the knowledge that there are many unanswered questions in this field. :jump: Why squander ignorance by doing more research? :huh: Just throw up your hands, claim 'therefore god', and walk away. :thumbs:

[Vitalstatistix]

Is the evidence conclusive?To the extent that "love" has any meaning.

You can't seriously be comparing belief in emotions to the belief in a supernatural again. You might want to take a look at my previous post (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180599) on this.

[TheBear]

Ah, I see. So it must remain a category unto itself. Makes it easier that way.

I'm not a big fan of changing definitions of terms whilst the discussion is ongoing. So, just making sure we're on the same page with this, the use of the term 'revelation', in context with the OP, involves a supernatural influence. That is worlds apart from, "I believe my daughter loves me."

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

That's the difference between you and me, I guess. I don't juxtapose or conflate the natural world with the supernatural world.....the real world with the faith world. And it's not that the supernatural world hasn't been given a looking over. The problem is - it fails using the same standards and reasoning, given to the doctor who never examines his patients, but instead relies on 'personal revelations' to diagnose each of them.

Were your parents Christian?

Yes, my parents were Christian, and while I am appreciative of my Christian upbringing, it was not until after I left my home and my eyes were opened through the preaching of God's Word, that I discovered the gospel of God's grace, and set aside what I had grown up with (which I had mistaken for true Christianity.) [The argument "He's just Christian because he grew up in a Christian home" doesn't work in my case. While I gained knowledge leading to salvation in my home and in church, it was not until I was called, regenerated, and came to understand God's grace in all it's goodness and glory that I was saved. Up until that point, while I would have mistakenly said I was a Christian, I wasn't! ... for I was looking to what I was doing rather than to what God has done for me.]

You may have to explain your illustration better for me. God not only examines man, but created them. He, with infinite wisdom and holiness, is fit to diagnose each of us.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

God's order to Moses to slaughter men, women and children came via revelation. Presumably he had to relay this command to his followers.

Imagine yourself as one of those followers. Your leader has come to you and revealed that God wants you to take part in the slaughter of 'every living thing' so that your tribe may possess the land of your enemies.

What is your response?

Do you follow?

Do you tell him to piss off?

On what basis (or by what objective standard haha) do you determine whether this is God's revelation or not?

another example of exegesis that fails to distinguish between dispensations of redemption

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Hi Bear :wave:

I don't intend to defend Rev in any way, shape or form but... All the example you gave lend themselves to factual evidence. How about, "I know that my daughter loves me?" Yes, I have some evidence, but it's not conclusive and could even be deceptive.

thank you.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Hey, Angela! :wave:

Nice to see you. :)

We're not talking about emotions. We're talking about 'personal revelations'.

Both in this case are possessed and must be communicated from another person.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

That one also lends itself to factual evidence. I'm sure if you search on google you'll find a lot of reputable articles about brain chemistry & love.

And if you read the Bible, you will find the account of the crucifixion.

Not to mention, the grace shown to us each day, the gift of the church, the difference found in those places where sanctification and grace are present in believer's lives, etc. It's not that there's not evidence, but that unbelievers deny the evidence.

[Vitalstatistix]

And if you read the Bible, you will find the account of the crucifixion.

Not to mention, the grace shown to us each day, the gift of the church, the difference found in those places where sanctification and grace are present in believer's lives, etc. It's not that there's not evidence, but that unbelievers deny the evidence.Why do you think we deny it?

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Why do you think we deny it?

Evolution?

[TheBear]

Yes, my parents were Christian...That's all I wanted to know, for now.

You may have to explain your illustration better for me.The OP is talking about some supernatural influence, is it not?

God not only examines man, but created them. He, with infinite wisdom and holiness, is fit to diagnose each of us.This is all based on what, the lack of a better understanding? The unquestionable faith in the supernatural? Deference to tradition? How can you make such claims, with such certainty?

[Vitalstatistix]

Evolution?Do you think you would deny it as well if you understood evolution?

[Morgana]

Are you suggesting that there IS a some sense of moral law implanted in man where he can distinguish? GREAT! I agree! Now, the question is, where did that come from? (not from evolution, ... or did the big bang produce intelligence and morality?)Of course there is a sense of morality in humans and there is good evidence to suggest that it came about naturally through evolution. I'm not sure where you think the big bang comes into it.

If you are interested in this, search for "evolution" in MFP or "morality" in E/C. There is plenty of discussion on the topic.

[TheBear]

Both in this case are possessed and must be communicated from another person.So, are both you and I having back and forth 'revelations' here, or are we merely communicating with each other?

[Morgana]

On the contrary...

1. On one level, is there not a difference between discussion of the supernatural and the natural. Your example fails to distinguish between the two.The natural world is that which is observable. If you can find a way to observe the supernatural, it will no longer be supernatural, by definition.

2. Einstein's discovery certainly came through revelation. That's what all science is... discovery and analysis of that which has been revealed. Not only that but this discovery was revealed first personally to Einstein. (Wouldn't you think it silly for Einstein to have said "I've discovered such and such" and for the world to have said we don't believe in personal revelations. You can't know anything that we don't know.... and gone on in denial and ignorance. This being the case given the natural world, how much more when it concerns the supernatural).The world did not believe Einstein because he claimed revelation, but because his theory was verified scientifically.

[geddit?]

While I gained knowledge leading to salvation in my home and in church, it was not until I was called, regenerated, and came to understand God's grace in all it's goodness and glory that I was saved. Up until that point, while I would have mistakenly said I was a Christian, I wasn't! ... for I was looking to what I was doing rather than to what God has done for me.]


I thought you were a Calvinist?

You've stood in judgement before (G)od?

Saved?

Now that's a revelation.

Good for you Reverand!


geddit?

[Lixma]

another example of exegesis that fails to distinguish between dispensations of redemption

No, just a perfectly valid question.

Moses comes to you with orders from God to kill everyone in a nearby city.

Do you....

a) Follow

b) Say "no thanks"

And on what basis do you determine whether this really is a divine command revealed to Moses?

[TonyBozo]

I hate to be redundant, but after reading all of the responses to this thread, all I can do is reiterate:


"Revealed knowledge" coming from a voice within one's head is no better than a guess, and these guesses are always "defined" as correct by the self-deceived. And isn't it curious that this "revealed knowledge" always agrees with the personal preferences of the one possessing the revelation? I guess the delusional are just funny that way :D .

Further, I'm forced to repost the following because of the entertainment factor of some of the posts:


The scientific method is the best approach, and the most successful system, we humans have currently devised to produce reliable knowledge about the objective universe. "Reliable" knowledge can be defined as "knowledge having a high degree of probability of being correct because its veracity has been justified by a reliable, time-tested method.

This thread, very much, reinforces my position. Thanks for the chuckles.

[pharoah]

Is one to suppose that reasoning of the natural will result in complete and inerrant knowledge of the supernatural and supranatural? While the natural contains evidences of the supernatural, revelation serves as an appropriate and needed testimony and guide. While this does not deny the possibility or reality of false revelations, it does affirm the value of revealed truth.

20 And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner.

21 And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.

22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.

23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.



Reverend, how in the world can anyone trust any "revelation" when God may have sent it via one of his "lying spirits"? In other words, even if you think that a revelation came from God, how do you know that he's not lying to you?

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Do you think you would deny it as well if you understood evolution?

I would think that such things associated with evolution such as no answer for the beginning, no explanation for how partial organs can be effective, and no purpose/hope, etc. would motivate those who hold to it to question themselves.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

So, are both you and I having back and forth 'revelations' here, or are we merely communicating with each other?

Both... in the natural realm.
There's certainly an added element when one involves the spiritual realm.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

The natural world is that which is observable. If you can find a way to observe the supernatural, it will no longer be supernatural, by definition.

The world did not believe Einstein because he claimed revelation, but because his theory was verified scientifically.

And so is the testimony of the inspired writers in the spiritual realm, for those willing and able to listen.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

I thought you were a Calvinist?

You've stood in judgement before (G)od?

Saved?

Now that's a revelation.

Good for you Reverand!


geddit?

No... I don't geddit. Explain it.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

No, just a perfectly valid question.

Moses comes to you with orders from God to kill everyone in a nearby city.

Do you....

a) Follow

b) Say "no thanks"

And on what basis do you determine whether this really is a divine command revealed to Moses?

Are you living during the Old Covenant or New Covenant? Has God personally appeared to you through theophany,etc.?

Or, are you just going to apply Old Testament commands to the New Testament church, without differentiating the progress of God's redemptive plan?

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Reverend, how in the world can anyone trust any "revelation" when God may have sent it via one of his "lying spirits"? In other words, even if you think that a revelation came from God, how do you know that he's not lying to you?

How much exegesis have you done concerning "lying spirits"? Tell me what you know, and let's see if the answer may be found in what you say.

[TheBear]

I would think that such things associated with evolution such as no answer for the beginning, no explanation for how partial organs can be effective, and no purpose/hope, etc. would motivate those who hold to it to question themselves.Wow. This is loaded and misleading.

The theory of evolution explains biological evolution after life first formed. It does not address bio-genesis any more than gravity does. You need to move to the chemistry department to learn more about the different hypotheses on momomers, polymers, protein chains...etc. We are far from a unified theory on this, but that doesn't mean that the default position is god did it. It just means we don't know yet.

Also, the argument from irreducible complexity, has already been given a thorough pulverizing.

[Morgana]

And so is the testimony of the inspired writers in the spiritual realm, for those willing and able to listen.Are you saying that people's spiritual inspirations are scientifically verifiable? That would certainly be interesting.

[geddit?]

No... I don't geddit. Explain it.


Has it been revealed to you that you are one of the elect?


geddit?

[pharoah]

How much exegesis have you done concerning "lying spirits"? Tell me what you know, and let's see if the answer may be found in what you say.

Why do I suspect that this "exegesis" that you speak of is a way to avoid the plain meaning of the verses that I showed you? And why do I suspect that you don't want to answer my question? Let's try this once again:

Reverend, how in the world can anyone trust any "revelation" when God may have sent it via one of his "lying spirits"? In other words, even if you think that a revelation came from God, how do you know that he's not lying to you?

[Vitalstatistix]

I would think that such things associated with evolution such as no answer for the beginning, no explanation for how partial organs can be effective, and no purpose/hope, etc. would motivate those who hold to it to question themselves.That's a non-answer. I assure you evolution more than takes care of those, but I suppose you'd have to take classes on it to see why. Spend some time in the E/C forum.

The question was if you understood evolution. Say for example you could verify for yourself that the same DNA used in paternity tests also points undeniably towards common descent. Would you give up christianity?

And I imagine you have a number of other reasons why you think atheists don't accept your evidence. You mentioned the bible as evidence for god & that shows we're not communicating. I'm just wondering where you're coming from.

[Lixma]

Has God personally appeared to you through theophany,etc.?

Yes he has. He has told me we are now living in the "even newer covenant" whereby men will wear moustaches but no nylon, women will not be allowed to touch their hair but can only read books on Thursdays and children who play ball games shall be stoned to death.

All this was revealed to me by God. You can tell the new laws came from God because they're just the same kind of hopeless nonsense that He has come out with in the past.

If you want to object that it mentions none of this new direction in the bible then that's only because the "even newer testament" hasn't been written yet....just like Moses divine orders to go slaughtering weren't in the bible when he rallied his followers.

Isn't revelation a great way to proceed?

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

While I've been out of the office all morning and don't have much time to devote to the thread today, I'm reminded as I skim through this thread that it seems some are trying to paint revelation into the box of some limited knowledge/wisdom/experience of man that he experience on some personal level that is not verifiable to others, so while it can't be proven, and there are many lunatics claiming such, then it must be discounted altogether. But such is to miss the the fact that God have revealed himself on a grand scale to all men through general revelation. Psalm 19 states "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hand.s" Daf after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knwoledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard." While it's true that he has not revealed all there is to know about him, he has revealed enough to leave man without excuse. The problem is not that God has not revealed himself, but that man, with a heart and predisposition against him denies the evidence and seeks ways to explain it away, something he with all his effort and combined knowledge has yet to be able to do. This being said, it is in regard to special or redemptive revelation that God makes himself know to the objects of his grace. This more wholistic picture is far from the picture that's been painted on this thread of revelation as just some personal unverifiable hallucination or whacko experience or lie being claimed as truth by some. While it's understandable that unbelievers might like to paint it in this light, the truth is God, while he does reveal himself through the Word to the objects of his grace, has NOT left this as the only means of revealing himself to the world.

Regarding the other posts:
No, I was not suggesting that spiritual renewal and transformation is to be scientifically proven. This is a misstatement of what I said.

I've spent limited time in the chemistry department during my days studying engineering looking at polymers, etc., but what that has to do with this discussion I'm not sure, especially given the number of times you admit you don't have answers. My position is that you will never have the answers as long as you oppose the truth of God, for God has ordained it this way, stating that apart from God ... one can ess "all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted." The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.

Keep looking, keep searching, keep trying to find, ... but when you realize that's not where the answer lies, turn to Christ, for him is the wisdom, the peace, and the hope that man so deeply desires and looks for!

[ELECTROGOD]

The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.
Still assuming "god", eh?...and the "soul"?...and telling people that the imaginary "soul" needs rest (how does that exactly work?).

Keep looking, keep searching, keep trying to find, ... but when you realize that's not where the answer lies, turn to Christ, for him is the wisdom, the peace, and the hope that man so deeply desires and looks for!
Don't listen to that opinion/preaching. If you want to find wisdom and peace in a story you can find better ones than that.

[anevilpetingzoo]

The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.
Who made knowledge about the beginning purpose and end the most meaningful questions? I think that is bullshit. I do not agree that we even have a soul to being with good Reverend, someone made up that concept a long time ago.

Also, try telling a Buddhist monk that they have not been searching in the right way for answers to meaningful questions, they might strongly disagree. For that matter try telling that to anyone that subscribes to a religious belief, they will all tell you that YOU are wrong.

I do not however want you to jump out of this too easily. What if everything that has been revealed to you was done by a malevolent evil spirit from another religion's pantheon? This evil god, lets call him Vecna, decides that the best way to lead people astray form the TRUE rout to salvation is to trick them into believing in the blasphemous Christian God. Now Vecna is no slouch, this guy knows all that there is to know, and it as powerful as his good counterpart gods that are offering salvation to mankind. Now, Vecna sends to you revelations telling you that you must do xyz. He further goes to the trouble to show you physical evidence that his revelation is actually the work of "Jesus" or whoever... How again I ask, do you rise above the power of this mighty force of evil, and see through his lies and fabrications?
Furthermore, why is it more likely that your God is true, and the one I present as an example is not also just as likely? Truly, if you are so convinced of the supernatural, it would be possible that there is supernatural evil far superior to you that can trick you and run you like a puppet!

[Vitalstatistix]

My position is that you will never have the answers as long as you oppose the truth of God, for God has ordained it this way, stating that apart from God ... one can ess "all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted." I realize you were in a hurry, but you really need to stop posting more scripture when asked to explain the shortcomings of scripture. I hope I don't have to explain why.

[spamandham]

If there were any metaphysical beings that wanted to communicate with people, surely they would realize that revelation would only be credible to the one receiving the revelation. Even if people believe they have received such revelations, it still makes no sense that they would expect others to simply take their word for it.

[TheBear]

Both... in the natural realm.
There's certainly an added element when one involves the spiritual realm.So basically, you're just re-defining, making adjustments for, and shifting the usage of the term 'revelation', as you go along. Get back to me when you're ready to talk on the specific OP usage. The OP usage of the term 'revelation' is, direct and personal communications from a supernatural agent/entity.

Tell us how this process takes place. Is there an audible voice from an empty chair across the room? Is there a warm and fuzzy feeling in the stomach? Do you go into a trance?

How does this work?

[Brother Daniel]

The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.
"As all history and experience has shown"? No, that's just a fantasy.

My mind -- or "soul", if you like -- is rather restless by nature, regardless of what I'm believing in on any given day. But I was a Christian for most of my life -- yes, even an evangelical, Bible-believing Christian -- and so I believe I know what you mean about the soul finding "rest". And I can hardly overstate the relief I felt when I discovered I had become an atheist. (Yes, discovered. I did not arrive there by choice.) The cognitive dissonance of Christianity -- the need to bend all experience to fit my presuppositions -- had been a constant irritant for 30 years. In atheism, my "soul" has indeed found "rest". Relatively speaking.

Your mileage may vary, of course. But please refrain from making manifestly false universal statements about "all history and all experience".

[Vitalstatistix]

Regarding the other posts:
No, I was not suggesting that spiritual renewal and transformation is to be scientifically proven. This is a misstatement of what I said.

I've spent limited time in the chemistry department during my days studying engineering looking at polymers, etc., but what that has to do with this discussion I'm not sure, especially given the number of times you admit you don't have answers. My position is that you will never have the answers as long as you oppose the truth of God, for God has ordained it this way, stating that apart from God ... one can ess "all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind. What is twisted cannot be straightened; what is lacking cannot be counted." The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.

Keep looking, keep searching, keep trying to find, ... but when you realize that's not where the answer lies, turn to Christ, for him is the wisdom, the peace, and the hope that man so deeply desires and looks for!You also didn't directly answer my question with a yes or no & I'm not willing to put words in your mouth. I really hope you aren't saying that you'd still believe in the bible given evidence it's false because of psychological utility.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

Still assuming "god", eh?...and the "soul"?...and telling people that the imaginary "soul" needs rest (how does that exactly work?).

I assume you think you're a pretty "good" person, huh?

[Ubercat]

I assume you think you're a pretty "good" person, huh?

Of course not. He isn't perfect and without flaw, which means he's diabolically evil, right? NO living thing is perfect. There's nothing wrong with being imperfect. Only your barbaric religion makes an issue of it.

-Ubercat

[anevilpetingzoo]

I have come to the conclusion that "revelation" is a type of conformation bias in sorts.
I really want xy&z to be true, so if I focus my every thought on it, it will be revealed as true. I guess there is no limit to how deeply humans can delude themselves.

Good thing we have a handy tool of real evidence to help us figure out Truth.

I wonder why god doesn't send cures for cancer via revelation?

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

I have come to the conclusion that "revelation" is a type of conformation bias in sorts.
I really want xy&z to be true, so if I focus my every thought on it, it will be revealed as true. I guess there is no limit to how deeply humans can delude themselves.

Good thing we have a handy tool of real evidence to help us figure out Truth.

I wonder why god doesn't send cures for cancer via revelation?

On the other hand, when one is crossing the street and an 18 wheeler is approaching, no matter how much they want to imagine that it's not there, it doesn't change the fact that it is! The same is true concerning God and the judgment to come.

Concerning the cures for cancer...is it really the cancer that's the biggest problem? (Or is it death....)

WHY is it that cancer (and other problems leading to death) cause such a big problem for unbelievers? Is this an indication that DEATH is a SIGNIFICANT problem for unbelievers?

[anevilpetingzoo]

Concerning the cures for cancer...is it really the cancer that's the biggest problem? (Or is it death....)
If you have it, then yeah it might be your biggest problem, especially if the pain is so great you want to euthanize yourself, but I bet you wouldn't let a person do that either. I find it odd that we can cure disease by science but never by revelation.

It seems to me like you are looking for a reason to preach rather then address the topics and ideas put forth, you simply deflect. Fine, most educated people see through it my fellow Reverend.

[EthnAlln]

In this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3863171#post3863171) thread, my fellow Reverend claims that Revaluation is the best way to get (in this case a specific type of) knowledge.

To me, this is the antithesis of science. Is the idea of god, and the religious claims of billions totally untestable and unverifiable by empirical evidence? If not, where does that evidence lead?

If someone is crazy, we take there revelations as total fabrications, yet if a person said that God/Jesus/Mary/Vishnu etc were behind the revelation, they might even become a saint!

To the resident theists; do you think that revelation is a good way to find out Truth? Can you ever discount the strong possibility that it is your overactive imagination or some other totally natural cause?

To my fellow non-theists; does the idea of Revealed Truth scare you as much as it does me?


(Non-theist speaking): I'm not particularly upset by the religious delusions, since they are shared, and the sharing tends to damp out the worst excesses, except in times of great emotional excitement. It's the individual delusions that are really dangerous.

But the shared delusions still have their dangers---one thinks of Stalinists and Nazis.

The simple facts are these:

1. What we can know with any appreciable degree of certainty is very limited, and doesn't suffice to determine some of life's most important decisions.

2. The majority of people can't seem to face fact 1 and its obvious implication that many of our vital decisions are on very shaky grounds. As a result, they are constantly claiming that their highly tentative, dubious conclusions count as knowledge.

[geddit?]

Concerning the cures for cancer...is it really the cancer that's the biggest problem? (Or is it death....)

WHY is it that cancer (and other problems leading to death) cause such a big problem for unbelievers? Is this an indication that DEATH is a SIGNIFICANT problem for unbelievers?

It's the suffering caused by cancer, Reverend.

Death is a joke in comparison.


geddit?

[someotherguy]

The point being (as all history and experience has shown) that regardless of how much work man may do, regardless of how close he may think he is, that from a naturalistic perspective, he will never discover the answer to these most meaningful questions (beginning, purpose, end, etc.) and therefore his soul will never find rest. In fact, it will never find rest until it finds rest in God.


Ah yes, hubris and condescencion. Now there's a combination that really drives me to take your words to heart!:rolleyes:

[TheBear]

Keep looking, keep searching, keep trying to find, ... but when you realize that's not where the answer lies, turn to Christ, for him is the wisdom, the peace, and the hope that man so deeply desires and looks for!Oh, this is rich - on many levels. :rolling:

[geddit?]

If you have it, then yeah it might be your biggest problem, especially if the pain is so great you want to euthanize yourself, but I bet you wouldn't let a person do that either. I find it odd that we can cure disease by science but never by revelation.

It seems to me like you are looking for a reason to preach rather then address the topics and ideas put forth, you simply deflect. Fine, most educated people see through it my fellow Reverend.

I essentially just parroted you.

Well Said!?

:D


geddit?

[EthnAlln]

Actually revelation can be a valid way to learn things, and everybody uses it. For instance, you ask someone where the car keys are and then you take their word for it when they reveal their location, because you trust them. Obviously basing your entire worldview, belief in miracles, and such on revelation is overdoing it just a tad. Given the propensity of people to lie, make up fantastic stories, or to believe things because they need to believe them rather than because they're true, I don't think you can reasonably just take someone's word for it on such matters.

Sorry, this argument just doesn't make it. Information gained from other people is not "revelation" in the sense of the OP.

[EthnAlln]

At last a modicum of common sense in this thread:)
As noted revelation is a valid way of passing on information. In fact we can talk it further than the poster has. The only way that all the posters in this thread have been able to tell what they to say is by, (gasp) revelation!
However due to the comments on this thread I have a problem - How can I believe what they have said? There is no way for me to prove that they were not lying when they wrote the words that they did. Perhaps they are being deceptive? Maybe I should not believe anything they say or write? They could be malevolent and out to deceive us? Maybe they're insane? I don't know since relevation is such an unreliable means of communication.
Makes it hard to communicate wouldn't you say?

Once again, let's use the word "revelation" with its usual meaning. There is a large element of experience in any "revelation" about ordinary physical objects communicated by other people; it's not revelation "from above."

Your post reminds me of Mark Twain's parody of the reporter who was told to report only what he knew and avoid hearsay. He wound up reporting a birthday party in terms something like this: "The guest of honor wore a dress that was said to be of silk. The woman claims to be the wife of a prominent lawyer..." Etc., etc. One can be scrupulous to the point of ridicule. I used to think it was smart when people asked me if the girl I had with me was my daughter. I would reply, "Her mother says she is." My daughters soon cured me of that bit of smart-assiness. They didn't think it was funny.

[EthnAlln]

Is one to suppose that reasoning of the natural will result in complete and inerrant knowledge of the supernatural and supranatural? While the natural contains evidences of the supernatural, revelation serves as an appropriate and needed testimony and guide. While this does not deny the possibility or reality of false revelations, it does affirm the value of revealed truth.

I guess I need a few examples of this. I don't quite understand it, and I really don't see the value of "revealed truth". Whose truth would that be? The truth of the Jews? Or of the Christians? (And if so, which of the 10,000-odd sects of Christians?) Or of the Muslims?

[EthnAlln]

On one level, you have put the ultimate responsibility in the wrong place. God, not man, not only has chosen to reveal himself, but enables man to know him and to discern the difference. HE gives man eyes to see, ears to hear and a heart to understand... and like a sheep - who recognizes his shepherds voice, he will not follow another but follow the voice he knows. Now, the sheep still use their ears, still use their reason, etc., but the difference is found in that they belong to the shepherd and recognize his voice. Certainly, man must use his eyes, use his ears, use his reason, etc., (and in doing so can detect many shortcomings and inconsistencies in that which is false), but the difference is found in whether or not he belongs to the shepherd and whether he recognizes his voice.


Which "sheep" would that be? The Christians? You are aware that some one billion Muslims have an entirely different revelation. Oh, of course, they are wrong. But, alas, their conviction is just as deep as your own, which of course is based on a REAL revelation.


Let me illustrate: I have a friend from Burma who has gone to NYC to plant a church among Burmese Americans. He, among all the Asian people in NYC was wondering how he was going to figure out and establish contact with Burmese people. He decided one way to do this was to walk down the street speaking Burmese (which he himself recognized might seem strange) but when he did so, those who were Burmese recognized the language and were drawn to him. Now others might argue - there's no such thing as Burmese, or there are those who speak French, and Spanish, so how can you tell Burmese, ... but those who belong to Burma not only can verify the truth, and distinguish the difference, but when in a field of differences are drawn though the voice.

So, as I understand this, God is speaking---what? "Christian?"---so that all the rest of humanity doesn't understand a word of it. Unfortunately, the analogy tends to break down, since the other people on the streets were under no illusion that your friend was speaking to them. They didn't imagine that he was speaking Tamil, for example. But many of those tiresome non-Christians in the world really do think the supernatural powers are speaking to them in THEIR own language.


Are you suggesting that there IS a some sense of moral law implanted in man where he can distinguish? GREAT! I agree! Now, the question is, where did that come from? (not from evolution, ... or did the big bang produce intelligence and morality?)

In a word,....yes. Human beings evolved to live in small clans, and they evolved an instinct to conform to the social group they live in. That is precisely the explanation for morality. Other groups of people really do subscribe to a morality different from the one you and I are familiar with. They got socialized in a different group, and can no more accept our morality than we can accept theirs. If you really have never heard this before, I know I'm going to have a lot of work to do trying to explain what I have NOT said here. But let me at least begin with a pre-emptive strike: What I've said doesn't mean that "for me" there is no difference between murder and philanthropy.

[EthnAlln]

another example of exegesis that fails to distinguish between dispensations of redemption

Rev. Muse, you tend to be too cryptic for me to follow you. This was a legitimate question. A few years ago, two women in Lousiana gouged out their sister's eyes because, they said, God had revealed that she was possessed, and they needed to exorcise her. How do you know they were wrong?

[EthnAlln]

And if you read the Bible, you will find the account of the crucifixion.

Not to mention, the grace shown to us each day, the gift of the church, the difference found in those places where sanctification and grace are present in believer's lives, etc. It's not that there's not evidence, but that unbelievers deny the evidence.

Yes indeed, just the way you deny the evidence for Islam and (I venture to say) Mormonism. You ARE aware just how many utterly convinced Mormon missionaries are out there, having greater success than any other semi-Christian or Christian sect? To borrow a thought from Richard Dawkins (who probably didn't originate it either), some of us just deny the evidence for one more religion than you deny the evidence for.

[EthnAlln]

I would think that such things associated with evolution such as no answer for the beginning, no explanation for how partial organs can be effective, and no purpose/hope, etc. would motivate those who hold to it to question themselves.

And I would think that before a person trotted out such tired old chestnuts as these, which have been refuted countless times, he would investigate and find out what evolution really claims.

[ELECTROGOD]

Originally Posted by ELECTROGOD http://www.iidb.org/vbb/images/001/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3870200#post3870200)
Still assuming "god", eh?...and the "soul"?...and telling people that the imaginary "soul" needs rest (how does that exactly work?).
I assume you think you're a pretty "good" person, huh?
Was that even an attempt to answer my question? Why do you run from simple questions about the stuff you assert? Don't you realize that doing this shows that you have nothing to back up your assertions?

So again, why does the "soul" need rest?
(You should define what the soul is first though)

BTW, you may also want to define what "good" refers to (your definition, the social definition and, since you are assuming for me, what you think my definition is).

[EthnAlln]

Was that even an attempt to answer my question? Why do you run from simple questions about the stuff you assert? Don't you realize that doing this shows that you have nothing to back up your assertions?

So again, why does the "soul" need rest?
(You should define what the soul is first though)

BTW, you may also want to define what "good" refers to (your definition, the social definition and, since you are assuming for me, what you think my definition is).

I also have been hoping for rather more substance and less dogmatic assertion without any reasons given. I've been hoping for some responses from Rev. Muse for a couple of days, but I realize he may well be very busy on the week-ends.

Apparently, he accepts the (non-scriptural) notion of "dispensations" whereby a whole host of things that were permitted in the Hebrew Scriptures are seen to be evil in the New Testament (slavery, alas, not among them). But I eagerly await his ipsissima verba.

[gurugeorge]

I'm taking it by revelation you mean a message or communication of some type from a supernatural being. There are many claims that this type of communication has happened in human history but how does one prove without a doubt that their communication is truly from a supernatural being? Can people even agree on the criteria that establishes if some communication from a supernatural being?

You've hit your head right on the nail there :)

The really bold, interesting hypothesis that religion presents is that it is possible to get into communication with discarnate intelligences (i.e. minds and personalities that don't depend on physical bodies) of varying degrees of wisdom and morality, and that the nice and clever ones can give us advice as to how to live best. No religion of the world stands out in any way, they all say the same thing: X went to the desert, did some rituals, "channelling" exercises, etc., etc., and some entity "spoke" with them and gave them rules we should all follow. Religionists usually believe that we would be mere brutes without this stream of intervention from entities of greater wisdom and kindness than ourselves to "uplift" us. (The other side of the coin being, this moral training is to a certain extent painful for the animal side of us, which has a certain inertia and laziness.)

I actually think it is a fairly frightening idea for a rationalist (as a rationalist myself, it frightens me, because it implies a whole load of stuff going on in the universe that I don't know about, and that could affect me in one way or another).

But if it's true, it's possibly one of the most important truths that could be found to be true, for our survival and flourishing.

To me, the big question is this: granted for the sake of the argument, that there are these "prophets" of all sorts, from all sorts of cultures, who have claimed such communication with discarnate intelligence. Let's also grant that, to those who have had them, these experiences are vivid and clear (not vague, wishy washy daydreams, but clear-as-day appearances of entities, hearing of voices, etc.), and that most of the people who have had them don't otherwise present any symptoms of stupidity or madness. (Let's say that the "medium" of communication is something like a lucid dream had while awake - traditionally called the "astral" realm, in Western occultism - in which the things happening do indeed seem quite real, as real as physical objects to the perceiver.)

Granted all these things, the seeming communication, and the deliverance of moral messages that "uplift" humankind in some way, the big question for me is, can our evolution be explained without any kind of "uplift" intervention from these purported communications from discarnate intelligences? Are there any "holes" in evolutionary theory, that make it unable to explain, on its own, how we got "here" (with a certain kind of pervasive moral training of the human animal)? Is it possible for dumb brutes to evolve culture and morality off their own bat?

Or does it really seem like we could not have developed the moral rules and wisdom (e.g. the Golden Rule) that we have without these kinds of purported communications from discarnate intelligences?

IOW, if there's a gap in the rationalist explanation for how we got here (with our full kit of morality), then there's a possible wiggle room for the religious hypothesis to be true. Of course it would have to be tested properly in other ways for actual truth, but a gap in the possibility of scientific explanation would leave some space to make the religious hypothesis worth testing seriously.

[EthnAlln]

I guess Rev. Muse isn't coming back. Too bad. I was hoping for some responses that might be something new or different from what I customarily hear when I challenge the validity of revealed knowledge.