Revelation - calling phillipnicew
Offline nigelTheBold and I have been discussing revelation with phillipnicew in one of the friendlier discussions I've had on this site. It was unfortunately bogged down by the fact that it followed the Dellinger posts. Hopefully, phillipnicew will be able to let us know more about the mechanism of revelation.
To sum up, I told phillip that he was pretending to know something that he could not possibly know, and he countered that he was not "pretending", but only relaying a truth that had been revealed to him. It's a fairly common argument, but phillip seperates himself from the usual assertions of this kind by his very even temperament. It's my personal hope with this conversation to gain more insight into the mechanism of personal revelation.
Naturally, this is an open conversation, so anything that would help shed light on the mechanics of revelation would be appreciated.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
This particularly is what I'd like addressed:
How is it possible to contact the one whose perception is more vast than yours?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Why I do declare I am honored beyond measure to have a post opened for me. I will certainly do my best to explain it and maintain an even temperament.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
That is a very good question. It seems to encourage the coherent development of a particular understanding of theology that is not readily (maybe ever) addressed in a philosophical manner. I hope and pray that I may further its development here and not hinder it via my mental faculties that have many shortcomings, despite the great strengths.
I suppose it is best to address this in sections, for there is a great deal in getting through the door, which is simplified in the "confessing and believing" aspect of the Christian faith. The "confessing and believing" part becomes more and more difficult in our age because we claim to know so much about everything, when, ages ago, one could hear the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and instantly believe - not to say that it is impossible now, but hard to find. The simple statement of "confess and believe" is fraught with hurdles and challenges that, sadly, many do not make it over, because they cannot accept one or many of the facets of that multi-faceted requirement.
"Confess and believe"
What is it to confess and believe? Well, there are a multitude of requirements, as was addressed in the above:
A. Understanding
Specifically, I wished to place this first because it is essential to understand what is hopefully going be believed, before any of the other hurdles could be crossed. The most fundamental issue with people who do not follow Christ is the issue of understanding what the faith actually is. Equally, I dare say, there is another side, wherein Christians are ignorant of the opposition as well as their own self-proclaimed beliefs and, to the end of education, is what I exhort my brothers and sisters to.
I am reminded of a story that the renowned Christian apologist and philosopher, Ravi Zacharias, told regarding a visit to his native land on an evangelistic mission where, during his speech, a local Hindu stood up and began screaming that Christianity teaches in favor of cannibalism (no doubt referring to the sacrament of Communion [Lord's Supper]). Such a man is unable to go any further because he suffers at the problem of understanding or, more accurately, the lack thereof.
Within the confines of Christian theology, skeptics often find the greatest difficulty in how a Christian is supposed to live - abiding by the demands of the law, of which the foundational ten are:
"You shall have no other gods before me.
"You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.
"You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
"Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your animals, nor the alien within your gates. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
"Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."
(I suppose it would be good to know these, at least, in case you are ever visited by Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron, my courageous, if even impetuous, brothers in Christ)
Pretty lofty, eh? Yeah, it is indeed, but there is a problem with the demand of the Christian to abide by the law, for were we able to do so, then the atoning sacrifice of Jesus would be unnecessary. Instead, we see that there is not one who is righteous, for all have fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and the righteousness, which is demanded of us is only met in the one, Jesus Christ (v. 22), who fulfilled the law (Mt. 5:17) in abiding by it perfectly.
Yet God's Law remains?
Yes, indeed it would seem, for God is the foundation of perfect and so is His Law, for His Law is that set of mandates that He requires of His creation - specifically that of the higher animal kingdom. It is impossible to remain clean of the burden of guilt (abiding to every jot and tittle of the Law) and thus we see the very reason that Jesus has come, that we who are weighted by the yoke of sin can find freedom in the flawless Paschal Lamb, who became a propitiation for our sins. He who knew no sin became sin for us that we may be set free.
There is much more on even this single subject, for those who wish to know more, but the simplest answer is always, "we do not abide by the mandates of the Law because Jesus."
B. Acceptance
Jesus, at this time, was in the region of Judea, on the other side of the Jordan, presumably, when a young man approached him and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
Jesus, answering the lad says, "Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, honor your father and mother,' and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'"
"All these I have kept. What do I still lack?" Asked the young man.
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth and, in this, we see the issue of acceptance. Even if the first hurdle of understanding is passed, acceptance is even harder, for it requires the submission of a once held position against the notion which is to be accepted or a position of "no knowledge," which is to say: a position of never pondering or considering the proposition which is to be accepted.
In the issue of acceptance, a person battles the enemy of will and/or desire, for prior to understanding that position, which merits acceptance, the person was solely aware or concerned with the matters of individual happiness and momentary contentment. Perhaps the intrigue into the position, which merits acceptance is found in noticing the lifestyle or demeanor of the one who has previously understood, accepted, and, soon, believed and followed through. I remember, from personal experience, many of my face-to-face discussions on my beliefs formed out of questions regarding why I am always joyous. Despite the intrigue, the hurdle is that jump from focusing on temporal and instant gratification to substantial and lasting joy, which does take patience and work to receive. We are vain and superficial creatures, by nature.
C. Belief
There was a period of time, prior to my turning from my lifestyle, that I believed what was said about God and Jesus, but did not follow or follow through. This was the hardest time in my life because it was filled with massive drug usage from coke, opium, marijuana, peyote and great amounts of alcohol abuse through my regular allotments of Colt 45 and Southern Comfort. During this time, I found employment at an adult membership club, working overnights selling novelty toys to single women and couples and renting videos to the various deviants who would seek rentals, all while maintaining the grotesque theater and private booths and keeping the perverts from gross (massive quantities) of sexual perversion with other clients. I understood the essentials of the message and accepted my inadequacies and what was told to me and believed the Bible was truth, but did not take it to the active level of the "follow through."
I shall appropriately dub this stage as the "shameful hypocrite" stage, for the person believes what is said, yet does not repent, does not turn, does not follow. James, the brother of Christ, says something profound in his writing, wherein he states that even the demons believe God exists - and shudder (James 2:19), but active and alive faith is that faith which bears much good fruit. The ingrafted "wild shoot" (Romans 11) which does not bear fruit is cast away to the fire as useless and lifeless.
The Follow Through
I know, I know. What does this have to do with anything? Well, in regards to the development of thought, one must cover conditions that may "gum up the works," so to speak and that was my intent in the above. I hope you made it through well enough.
In regards to the issue of contacting the one who possesses the perception, which is infinitesimally larger than ours, we must conquer the hurdles listed in the above and follow through with live and active faith. I suppose I could, very easily to myself, say that prayer is that contact, but then we would not have had much fun in me doing so.
Much different from that view of the deist, we see God as an active and personal being, who is very active in His creation, sustaining it and ensuring each function functions according to the functionality of its function (haha). We pray, not to alter God's will, but rather for the altering of ours to match His (if I may use a little Kierkegaardian[?] influence) and, in doing so, our perspective changes, if it is not fair to say that our perception of the world itself is not completely and wholly changed in the act of believing and following through. I am reminded of the stanza of the classic hymn:
"Heaven above is softer blue,
Earth around is sweeter green;
Something lives in every hue
Christless eyes have never seen."
The perception of the world itself is forever changed in the eyes of the one who finally understands, accepts, believes, and follows through and is continually changing through the individual growth of the live believer, who stays in close contact with his Master.
I am afraid, though, that as easy as it is to say, "confess and believe," it is not always that simple and there is not an easy answer to the one who is of our age of "enlightened thought."
----------------
Once again, I appreciate the civility. That alone speaks measures of respect and I am unbelievably joyous to have such an opportunity.
Peace and love in His,
Phillip Nicewaner, of the Myspace Outreach for Christ
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
Hi Phillip, If you'll excuse the interruption, I'm at a loss to understand how your post answers the question HisWillness posed - How is it possible to contact the one whose perception is more vast than yours? You've given instructions rather than explanations, instructions which, I daresay near enough all of those tuning in to this thread have heard before; correct me if I am wrong Will, but I think the question was intended to elicit a response more along explanatory than instructional lines.
In terms of explanation your post seems to say, at most, that a mystical change occurs in human perception (mystical therein to define: no mechanism specified) allowing for the ability to subjectively extrapolate the seemingness of a divine presence (vagueness on the mechanism plagues the definition of extrapolate here).
Can you expand on philosophically on those two points for me?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I assure you that no pardon is necessary. If you have anything to add or ask, then do so without hesitation and regret - all I ask for is civility and you have provided that marvelously so far.
The essential problem that I faced from the start is what I am able to provide versus what was requested, specifically that the answer is never as easy as is the question that was asked. It is also worthy of note that the difference between instruction and explanation is marginal in many cases. Sure, you have probably heard much of what I wrote before, though it is unlikely it was as in depth and certainly without my particular charm and zest.
As far as explaining or refining a bit more on those two points, I must first say how wonderfully splendid it is that you have addressed that topic. I am afraid that as individuals, we cannot anticipate every avenue of thought when philosophisizing1 "on the fly" and I am no different.
I love the term subjective and how it relates to truth. Often, I find myself debating the nature of truth and whether it is objective or subjective and find great pertinence to the issue of divine influence or revelation, which is indeed the matter at hand. Often, within religious practices, we may observe tribal religions and practices, of which Vodun (Voodoo) is very relevant, wherein the adherents essentially work themselves into a hypnotic frenzy through chanting and hyperventilating and having a unique "communion" with the spirits or the divine, yet there is another, across the globe, who may become connected through the usage of a heavy hallucinogenic and steady drum beats and yet another who, upon listening to contemporary Christian rock music in church and repeatedly whispering or crying out the name "Jesus!" would begin to sway and speak in what can only be recognized as jibberish - reaching a multitude of beliefs spanning from Vodun to the Native American beliefs of the southwestern tribes, and the Charismatic/Neo-Pentecostal Christians.
As I explained slightly in the thread that spawned this thread, revelation and divine influence is found as consistent with reality when tested with scrutiny and in the various religions that we see in the world stage do not meet with the requirement of said consistency with reality and logical deduction regarding the very beliefs themselves (I believe my example was against Islam). Anyone can begin shouting and swaying and crying and speaking in jibberish, but is there a practical gain? That is not the end question, though, for we see that even in tribal religions, their medicine men or "witch doctors" administer practical information regarding the function of their land through what they deem as divine inspiration, but are merely running on deeply cultivated knowledge about the land in which they reside.
From this point, it is only fair to consider what is a potentially true, objective, divine influence into the life on the one being influence via perception....
More later tonight or tomorrow morning because I have to leave work.
Until then, peace and love,
Phillip Nicewaner
1Philosophisizing is another one of my wonderful word creations...some may call it a Bushism of sorts.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
You say that so modestly.
Your good humour is, refereshingly, of the rare genuine type, so you may be right about that.
I see what you're saying and I agree with the point to it. That said, it's not helpful in establishing anything to cast objectivity into doubt, it's our best standard and we need it. Shouldn't we approach the throne of grace with confidence, rather than doubt?
So if I am understanding you correctly here, you're pointing to these widely observed processes, which to some appear perfectly natural and explainable, as being the mechanism.
Just on that, I have been inclined to think that modern penetcostal 'miracles' (is that the accepted term?) such as tongues for example, are explainable as individuals in a group setting doing what is expected of them to do. They seem to me to be just individuals engaging in voluntary acts of conformity without any extraordinary spiritual significance to be seen. Conforming to radical norms is not an unusual phenomenon, it happens in every level and division of society. Depending on the will of the indvidual, mostly, a certain majority of followers in any contigent will exhibit the behaviours commonly accepted by the contingent as favourable ones with varying degrees of sincerity. Psychic groups will strive to be more psychic, business clubs will strive to be more businesslike, and penetcostals will strive to be more penetcostal, and every last one will fake it like they mean it if they have to or are inclined to.
So back to the mechanisms, one of which, as I just said, is IMHO merely conscious posturing. You mention drum beats and chemical inducement, the latter of these has a lot of naturalistic explaining already put to it, so I don't think we can get very far in establishing a supernatural context of that one. Drum beats, on the other hand, and the emotional experience of music is much more my flavour of an explanation, now we are talking a possibly divine mechanism.
looking forward to your next post.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Phillip you wrote about a "perfect god and his perfect foundational laws' could you explain the first? "...No Other God before me." What Other Gods does it speak of? The second claims "I am a jealous God..." Doesn't that make him a hypocrit in violation of the tenth commandment ( thou shalt not covet).His threats against iniquitys '..unto the third and fourth generations." Sounds clearly biggoted, intolerent, nerrow minded and a violation of the Sixth commandment. Is this a foundation law you are proud of? The third is the one about "the lords name in vain." If god is the creator of all things and people why is he/it surprised when a true believer swears when things go screwball, More intolerence for the masses? The fourth doesn't bother me at all but most Christens and Muslims don't get it. The seventh day is SATURDAY!!!! Number Five is a good idea would that Jesus of Nazareth thought so; that the son of a hypocrite turns out to be a hypocrite is no surprise to me. Numbers 5,6,7,8,9, are all great ideas that have existed in human societys since before human language, about 40,000 years before your written foundation laws. Obeying the Tenth commandment would realy screw up our consummer oriented economy. Don't go screwing around with my pay check!!! Commandments 6,7,and 8 covers the overly couvetous.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Translation: We now understand more about our world than we did in the past, so there's a growing desire to cease chalking-up natural events to the supernatural... and that's just too bad?
*Shrugs*
*Shakes head*
*Walks away*
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
I'm not sure it's limited to prayer, though. Are you saying that in behaving in certain ways, you're able to "tune in" (to put it crudely) to this active God?
I have no punchline for this, by the way. Usually (ie in my other posts) I take antagonistic metaphysical shouters down the garden path and deliver them to their own ridiculousness. Here, I'm fascinated by your "process", without the Socratic method condescention.
In this way, the "will of God" is an ideal towards which you strive, correct? So in your context, is Jesus the ideal? Or maybe God + Jesus?
This is part of what you alluded to before, with the master-servant relationship. The idea that submission is part of the behaviours that bring you close to the ideal, and thus (if I'm not over-extending your ideas) tune you in to God. Am I representing what you're saying fairly?
There's no reason to get nasty, really. You haven't made any intellectually (or even intuitively) dishonest statements, which is usually what causes grief here.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I am bummed out, truly truly. Literary role-play in this environment where there is the intent of using convincing arguments to sway the opposition is unnecessary and is often nothing more than filler, presented as a mask of superiority - whether subconsciously or not. Following what we instinctively determine regarding body language:
Shrug after passionate questioning (i.e. and that's just too bad?): Sign of defeated passion in the lack of response from the one being questioned (giving up)
Shaking head after shrug: Shame and disappointment in the one who did, could not, and would not answer you honestly or at all
Walking away: Moving on from ignorance to more fruitful venues
The shameful part is that I was not given ample time to respond to your question before such literary "body language" was used. Ultimately, the question itself assumes that the events listed within the text of the Bible were solely natural, having no supernatural influences, which is indicative of the naturalist preference and presuppositions aplenty.
Peace and love,
Phillip
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
I still don't see an explanation.
1. WHAT is revelation? How does it operate as a method for information-gathering?
2. How do you know if one revelation is true and another not?
Was Andrea Yates having a true revelation when she killed her children? How can you determine if she was or not?
Philip, how can you tell if your revelation is true or insanity?
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Absolutely and thanks for asking. God is referring to the practice of idolatry, which is the act of lifting anything higher than the Creator. Also, it is more accurately "gods" with the little "g." If you remember the story, while Moses was taking the commands, the people melted their riches to make a golden idol to worship. Even in the Prophets, we read of the Israelites consistently falling away to worship created gods while the uncreated God was ignored by virtually everyone.
There is a slight error here, which is that God is coveting anything in that manner of which He warns against. God does not want His people to burn (eagerly and desparately yearn) for the possessions of another and that is the coveting of which He speaks against. God "covets" our focus and love as One who eagerly desires us to recognize Him because He is what is best for us.
"Thou shalt not murder."
Let me ask this: does God have to be tolerant? More so, is love tolerant? The answer is a brilliant "no." Does a good judge merely allow someone to commit a crime and go unpunished? Said judge may love humanity with a fiery passion, but does not tolerate lawbreakers. Just as much, a parent who loves their child will give each transgression its due punishment because, despite love, the parent will not tolerate rebellion.
God is very narrow-minded, isn't He? Shouldn't He be, for it is certainly not too much for the Creator of all to expect and demand something from His creation.
The tolerance issue has already been addressed and it is not surprising to Him, which is why He commands us not to do it. Each of the commandments are filled with what not to do because we already did it.
Right. The original sabbath was on Saturday, but Christians began to come together specifically in remembrance of Him on Sunday, for that was the day He rose. It is not about "not getting it," but rather having a reason...I don't have anything to defend Islam, however.
It is impossible for God to be a hypocrite. This paragraph makes little sense and I would ask that you provide resources of the "about 40,000 years before your written foundation laws" part.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
Thank you kindly. The sad thing is that not everyone thinks so...many are often so content with spreading misery that they lose sight of the fact that I am trying to be as kind and refreshing as possible.
Yet it is not that easy in our world today.
Not necessarily, I am merely pointing out that the claims made by adherents of other faiths are often merely reacting to the hallucinogenic and trance-like qualities of the activities performed. If you have ever done drugs, you may be familiar with the certain activities and sounds that inspire such a deepened state, but divine intervention that does not make, despite the multitude who find divinity in the open drug usage...I used to be one of them.
I am inclined to believe, as well, that modern pentecostal movements err a great deal in the babbling of the tongue - mainly because they often avoid the interpretation part that Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 14. They could be geniune, though. Nonetheless, I do not possess that gift, from what I am aware of...some say my gifts revolve around teaching, knowledge, and wisdom. Praise God that it may be so!
Yes, emotionally, I know exactly what you mean. I respond deeply to music, specifically classic rock, reggae, and contemporary jazz. I would encourage you to check out a classic rock band named Camel (you can find much of their footage on youtube, Unevensong is my favorite)...they are deeply hallucinogenic. I do not find much truth in any divine mechanism in music, but I could be wrong and so often am. Often, though, like I stated before, the explanation and the instruction are two of the same, especially with the explanation suffers at limited mental faculties of the one explaining and the one receiving.
Peace and love,
Phillip
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
I suppose it is most like what Jesus is recorded in the eleventh chapter of the gospel according to Matthew as saying, "Come to me all you who are weary and burdened and I will give you rest..." and also in the third chapter of Revelation as proclaiming that He stands at the door knocking and upon letting Him in, He will eat with him (there is something a bit more significant in the getting together for a feast in Middle Eastern feasts than in western - Ravi Zacharias talks about this in one of his books regarding a meal he shared with a Middle Eastern family). To further drive it home, have you ever heard the parable of the prodigal son? Who, after squandering his inheritance, came back to his dad with his head held low in shame. When his father saw him trotting in the distance, he ran to his son and embraced him warmly. The essential point is that when we move to God, God too comes to us (more specifically, when we walk to God, He runs to us).
That is certainly refreshing indeed, for it is all too often that I am automatically stricken down as an "ignant, backwater Kistian," who fears falling off of the edge of the flat world. I am fascinated as well, which is why I dwell on it so much.
Aha ha ha...Christian theology regarding the relationship between Jesus and God...that is a very difficult thing to try and fully comprehend. To a great extent, we accept the whole based on what we can understand scripturally. Through what is called hypostatic union, we see Christ having two complete natures, wherein He is both fully human and fully divine. Beyond that, the ideal is Christ, for we are constantly being made to conform to the likeness of his Son, Christ Jesus.
Submission is a big part of it. I would not be inclined to say it is the whole of the issue, for I need more thought to develop this notion that we are currently discussing, but it is a fair representation for what we have discussed so far.
That is a huge problem isn't it? As I stated before, I try to draw my brothers and sisters away from discussing things they know little about, but I applaud and admire their courage - even if it is at a vast price. Christians are not experts on everything and, sadly, we are often approached as if we are (not to say many of us do not act like experts on the minute details of existence). I have spent the last two to three years in deep study in subjects like biblical theology, ecclesiastical history, and philosophy, with minor stints into pieces of the sciences (Freud, Jung, and Darwin). I find that I am often overwhelmed at how much there is to learn and the time spent on the vast and, yet, so meager knowledge I have acquired through the blessings of my Lord.
Peace and love,
Phillip
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
I will continue reading and not post after this. Sorry, all this politeness for what? I only see someone skating around the crux of the questions and supplying basic Xian dogma. I still don't see the answer to very basic questions.
1. What, other than his own assertions, does he offer as evidence for all of this? The Bible? Has he vetted himself as a valid interpreter, except by his own revelation? Where did he verify that revelation occurs? In the Bible? Circular reasoning, anyone?
2. Has he offered one iota of what revelation IS? He has written a tome on what it isn't, or how difficult it is to desccribe and explain. Perhaps there is nothing to explain, that is why he finds it difficult?
3. Has he explained why one person is insane but another is clearly imbued with the Spirit? Andrea Yates kills her children due to a revelation = insane. Moses commits genocide due to a revelation = saintly. How does he determine one revelation from another?
How does he PERSONALLY determine if his revelation is real or insanity? Often (as the history of religious nuttiness has shown) revelations are quite different from what the religion has taught. Jesus came and preached very different things than most of his predecessors. Noah was asked, despite all social pressure to act in a completely different manner than the rest of society. That is, a revelation is usually a extreme departure from the status quo. You can't use the historical record as a test to determine if your revelation has come from God, Satan or your warped brain. Kinda like miracles: you can't base a miracle on what has come before - that's what makes it miraculous!
A revelation by the same token is devoid of any reference except for the individual experiencing it. Noah was asked to build an Ark, Moses was asked to kill, Abraham was asked to kill his son, Jesus was asked to preach forgiveness and peace, etc.
The fact that this joker is claiming to have had a revelation and yet it is nothing more than typical Xian dogma makes it entirely ridiculous. If his revelation were true, we would expect it to be Earth-shattering. His dredging up the stock pablum is a key to his insincerity. He is insincere and disingenuous because he knows "in his heart" that he doesn't have a hotline to God, or that the Great Sky Pappy has spoken to him. He knows in his heart he only wishes it were true and has decided to repeat it enough so that he either believes it himself or convinces other people to join in his dellusion.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
I'm more interested in understanding the point where you get the God. Is it a kind of epiphany? Like, "oh, I get the God thing now!" or is it a thing you get used to, after lots of specific behaviours are acted out?
How do you deal personally with wacky passages like the parable of the ten minas? I'd have serious trouble figuring out what Jesus was saying with that one.
Okay, because it's a part of it that I don't understand at all. Why does God need us to submit? In fact, why does God need anything from us at all?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hi daedelus,
I asked phil about revelation to understand the whole thing. I don't get it at all, whether it's from a subjective point of view or whether it's doctrine. I've always been an atheist, no matter what I was told as a child or what people tell me now, so I've never had the whole mystical whatever happen to me. The interesting thing about phil is that he's not pulling a Paisley or a lifewhispers, so there might actually be something to learn in the dialogue, rather than just getting the most extreme form of insanity possible posing as reasonable propositions. Maybe I'm being optimistic.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I am sorry that you feel like I am skating around the crux of the questions. Beyond that, I am sorry that you are wanting an easy answer from me, because I have none. I stated, at the very beginning, that this was not going to be incredibly easy to discuss because there are many things to discuss in great depth. I refrained from responding to your first post on here because it seemed apparent that it would lead to hostility...as your second post reaffirmed, your intent is not civility, but rather ridicule. No matter what the position is, ridicule is completely unnecessary and often shows a greater affinity to the "low-brow" way.
I am glad that you used the term circular reasoning. I recall an old apologist named, Cornulius Van Til, who makes a very interesting point in that all systems of thought are circular in their fundamental level. I believe he used the example of a rationalist defending reason with reason itself...it has been a long time since I read up on him. Beyond that fun little tangent, is your third question indicative of your readiness to accept a form of Biblical interpretation, if said interpretor was solidly interpreting the scripture? If not, then it should be stricken from your attack as doing more harm than good to your point.
Ha! Very often than not, you can only describe something by what it is not. Interestingly enough, we do it so often that it is second nature to us - eliminating the possibilities that are not very likely to determine what something actually is. Remember the methodology behind taking multiple choice tests? You narrow down the answer by what you know that it is not, thus increasing the odds of accuracy.
This is another fascinating question that allows us to take a great look at the difference.
Insane "revelation:" That revelation, which is inconsistent with the nature of the one revealing it [God] (i.e. a woman saying that God told her to kill her children, when God has clearly expressed the opposite in His warning about harming children). Also most often has no practical reason for it.
'God had revealed to me that we are to kill everyone who purchases Philadelphia cream cheese.' <---Insane
'God had revealed to me that Jesus was actually a hairy midget who invented hot dogs.' <---Insane
Potentially true revelation: That revelation which is practical and reasonable, has a reason for the deed. Moses led his people to war against the natives of the land by God because of their gross (vast amount) transgressions against Him. It was not just Moses that God used as that type of "wrath," but He also used the ruler of Babylon against the Israelites in their gross (vast amount) sinning.
'God had revealed to me that our congregation is in danger because we have been too passive regarding our sinning.' <---Practical, potentially true
'God had revealed to me that you were dealing with a horrible ailment, may I pray for you.' <---Practical, potentially true
How? Through practicality and consistency. I know it is not an easy notion to accept, but many Christians place great scrutiny on what they are taught, what they believe to be true, and the consistency of the message being relayed. I would reckon that I could safely say that, outside of your particular viewpoint, my sanity was not thrown into question.
Have you ever talked to a person who is not quite there? More often than not, they are incoherent and inconsistent within their own proclamations, as well as their demeanor...there are those who seem "together" (Charles Manson), but within the conversation, the true state of his mental faculties comes out, wherein everyone sees that he is truly 'wicky in the wacky woo.'
Have I not remained consistent within the proclamations that I am making? Am I not approaching each person, no matter how I am approached, with gentleness and kindness? Surely my particular sanity cannot really be thrown into question from what you have seen here...unless, that is, that you are under the impression that all theists must be insane, which is further reason to strike that third question in point one from your post (consistency in the message) and to abandon your specific attack against theism, for you are unqualified to discuss it because of your own set presuppositions (practicality in wisdom).
No, correction. They were told to do those things. Jesus' whole intent in being here [in our physical existence] was to save people from their sins.
I suppose I am more disappointed than surprised that you have resorted to insults. Let me ask you: are you happy? The reason why I ask is because a sure sign that a person is not happy is that they are content with spreading misery, which is what occurs through name-calling. Surely you are not happy, otherwise you would not endeavor to put me down when I have been the epitome of kind and gentle and, as the op stated, I have not committed the atrocity of intellectual dishonesty.
Beyond that, I suspect you do not understand the nature of revelation, of which we speak. The revelation is regarding the change of perspective or "perception" on existence and reality, not something as "earth-shattering" as a profound explanation on what occurs within the smallest functions of the human body. As far as "dredging up the stock pablum," perhaps it is best explained as a firm testament to my personal studies and major, which is philosophy. If you have read any real philosophical works, then surely you know that a philosopher is rarely one to go directly to the answer, but to use a lot of words to express a single truth, which could be massively simplified (i.e. Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, which is influential, but a truly dreadful read or David Hume in A Treatise on Human Nature, which is influential to a point and an equally dreadful read...or anything from Francis Bacon, for that matter). I go through the process that I go through because I approach subjects like a philosopher would, it is only inevitable that I arrive at God as the end, for, while philosophy is the "love of wisdom," the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord (Pr. 1:7; 9:10).
"Great Sky Pappy"
I am fascinated by how preposterously mean you are. What exactly shows my insincerity? That I openly admit that there is no easy answer for this topic? That I openly admit that I do not know everything? Surely, I have broken the commonality of the evangelistic method on this venue by admitting, first, my short-comings and choosing to address that which I am familiar with and developing a sound thought on that which I can be more familiar with. Ultimately, in those three words, you have announced your true intent (hatred) and your greatest flaw, the blanket presuppositions that:
"theists are insane"
"theists are wrong"
Shouldn't you leave such a debate for those that would be more objectively apt to discuss these topics or those who are respectful enough to hear out the opposition?
Peace and love in His,
Phillip Nicewaner
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
It is more of an epiphany. When I came to Christ, I was employed at an adult membership club, when I was playing with my new phone (high) and downloaded the Holy Bible to see what it looked like. I read the gospel for the whole five minute trial and took a look around my environment and the aching in my stomach from the gross profanity and it was like opening my eyes for the first time. At that moment, I stopped doing drugs (pot, opium, coke, peyote), stopped drinking, and stopped cussing. On top of that, that very night, I gave my heart to Christ on bended knees and quit my job with no prospects and little money left to my name, much of which I donated (not a boast or brag).
Well, it is actually quite simple. If you have read any part of the gospel, then surely you recall the many passages where Christ refers to the trees who bear fruit and when He approached the fig tree, which bore no fruit and withered at His command. It is the same principle of the trees bearing fruit. I suppose it would be fair to call the initial minas the initial gift that God gave us (life) and the gain or stagnation to be what we do with that gift. He who does the will of God will bear much fruit indeed.
First, it is essential to start by saying that God doesn't need anything and certainly nothing from us, but rather He wants us to come to Him and demands submission. The foundational nature of sin is one thing: glorification of the creation, above God. It is said that the sin in the tower of Babel story was that they [the people] favored their creation over what God provided and it is the same with all sin - the glorification of that which is created over that which was uncreated. Remember when I was talking about why it is so hard? Well the very reason is because it intercedes on our nature of self-glorification (i.e. denying what we want for what God wants).
Peace and love,
Phillip
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
Hi, Phillip, and thank you for doing your part to keep the conversation civil and reasonable. I've a few questions of my own related to some of daedalus' points.
A few minor points: First, the prohibition against harming children was specifically made against harming children who believe in Christ. This is significant because of your later statement re: Moses.
Second, Joshua led the people to war against the inhabitants of Canaan, not Moses. Moses didn't get to go in. He died for hitting the rock twice.
Third, while it could be said that the instruction to make war upon those living in the Promised Land was practical, what was practical or reasonable about the extent of it? Joshua was instructed by God to leave nothing alive, not men, women, or children, not even their livestock or beasts of burden. How is it practical to destroy the resources conquest offers you? What transgression against God had the Hittites' cattle and hens perpetrated?
Well, this is part of what daedalus seems to be questioning: consistency with what? Christ's ministry was, at times, terribly inconsistent with the prior revelations of the prophets and leaders of the Judean people.
And, as long as the particular channel along which the aberrancy is direct in these individuals is avoided, they seem perfectly sane... even to the point of sometimes being called 'supersane', functioning with far fewer of the self-delusions and denials that most folks need to avoid locking themselves in their house for fear of being run over by a bus.
In this case, Phillip, I think it's less an attempt to spread misery as much as it is a pro-active defense mechanism being set off by what daedalus feels are attempts to obfuscate a lack of ability to give clear, concise answers. Many of us here have been treated exceedingly poorly for the 'offense' of being atheists, and some of us can get a little... punch-drunk, if you will. Like a boxer whose body is always ready to react with a counter-punch, we sometimes react to what we think are 'warning signs' with ingrained mechanisms to protect ourselves by dismissing, and thus on some level rendering impotent, the other party.
I'm not sure anyone can truly understand the nature of revelation, or epiphany, in someone else's head. Those moments of profound internal expansion can be... very powerful, but very hard to convey. No matter how the experience is described, the description can never really capture the sensation of it, or how it was achieved.
An example:
My first semester in college, I experienced a moment that... I have never been able to recapture, but deeply wish I could. I woke up, as often happens, with a bit of music in my head. This morning, it was the main melodic phrasing of John Williams' The Imperial March, an admitted favorite of mine. I woke up, turned my head toward the window, and as I let my unfocused gaze (with my vision, I lose focus about 6 inches from my face, and I wasn't wearing my glasses) take in the 'box of light blue blur'... something just clicked.
Right at that moment, the music in my head went from the simple little 'whistle along at home' melody... to an orchestra that would fill the seats at Giant Stadium... and I could pick out each instrument among thousands. I knew... everything. I understood everything. It was a moment of pure and total clarity.
And then it was gone. In about the time it took me to think 'Oh... my...' gone. I can't begin to really explain what the moment felt like. What I've put down here falls so amazingly short of the sense of it I still have. (added for Will: Or at least, the perception of it I interacted with at that point. I can't prove any of it was real, after all.
)
I think the problem you're going to run into in this discussion is largely of a similar vein: It's really hard to describe an awareness of something inside your own head. :/
That's something else I'd like to question:
Why should I fear God? It doesn't make sense to me. Fear is only useful insofar as it promotes a responding change in behavior to eliminate the need for fear. Fearing God would seem to me to be in the self-same category as believing so you can get into Heaven. It seems... wrong.
If belief is predicated upon reward, isn't that just graft? Bribery, in effect? By the same token, if belief is predicated on a fear of punishment, is it any more than cowardice in the face of intimidation? Does either amount to anything more than a kind of spiritual racketeering? Bribery and Extortion? 'Nice little soul y'got there, be a shame if anything happened to it...'
And if, as mosts religions assert, virtue is based in the belief in God, is virtue that rises from either of those types of belief really virtue? Behaving out of fear of punishment isn't virtue, it's victimization. Behaving out of a desire for reward, again, isn't virtue... it's avarice, greed.
I know this is a bit of a tangent from the subject of Revelations and how one can attempt to experience them, but you seem a reasonable fellow, and you did bring up the quote, so... why should I fear God?
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Oh dear, I had a bad case of keyboard dyslexia there with my spelling of pentecostal, didn't I LOL.
Okay, I wasn't sure I was rightly understanding you there hence why I asked. So in other words it's more like you point to these processes as being distinct from revelation, No?
Okay, I will say I find the idea of instructions as explanations quite unsatisfactory myself. An analogy that might demonstrate my position here is that I once had a driving instructor whose method of teaching involved a mechanical explanation of the objects involved in a gear change. His main objective with interspersing a little mechanical knowledge in his teaching was plain and simply it made for a better driver. By giving his learner the simple knowledge of how, for example, the clutch plate will grab the gear with its own momentum his teaching method makes it it more possible for the driver to use gear changing effectively in real life situations; with the added bonus that they are taught not to wear down the aforementioned clutch plate with unnecessary force against it. If that instructor chooses rather to just state the instruction put the stick in the zone and let it grab without actually explaining the mechanics of why this is such a good idea, the lesson simply wouldn't have the same impact. The driver would still wonder upon whether forcing a gear is faster and more effective simply because they don't know any reason why it wouldn't be, they must fill in the gap with their own reason, reason that lacks information. Useful information such as - the momentum of the clutch plate is generating enough force to move your tonne of car easily and smoothly, the force of your arm is probably not more effective than that - for example.
So, in short, instruction is, for me, a far cry in value from a thorough explanation, it's just no substitute. If, in revelation they are, as you say, one, I must still ask the why's and wherefore's of that cause without them I can't believe makes for good drivers.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thank you, BMcD, you were quite right in all aspects.
Philip, as I said, I would rather not get into this. I'm going to make a prophesy: You will continue to claim you don't know what revelation is, yet continue to wax on about its reality , truth and effectiveness.
A side note, Moses killed every man, woman and child because it was best for Moses (Moses claims it was best for God's plan).
Andrea Yates claimed that it was revealed to her that her children would become tools of Satan. If so, she just saved the world from 3 possible Stalins/Hitlers/Moses'. If she is right, wouldn't it make sense that God would have her kill them? (Of course, he could have not made them in the first place, but God doesn't work like that - he loves the smell of blood - its in the Bible).
Plus, even if she were wrong (and dellusional), according to your religion the children would go to heaven (they were baptized), whereas, it is a distinct liklihood that if they had lived they would have strayed and gone to Hell.
Andrea Yates performed the most loving sacrifice - as taught by Jesus - she sacrificed her eternal soul to Hell in order to save her children. Talk about true Xian love!
Jesus doens't come close - he knew he was going to Heaven and be rewarded. Andrea knew she would go to Hell. Andrea, according to Xinanity, is the far, far more moral person.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
It's good that you stopped the self-destructive behaviour. That never leads anywhere remotely good. As I said before, I'm pretty sure I've experienced the same feeling just walking past clubs like that, so I understand completely. We may have distinctly different interpretations of the feeling, but it's good that it happened to you.
That actually makes that parable creepier, though. The people in the tale considered the usurping king cruel and oppressive, and the punished servant had everything taken away from him for basically protesting the king's rule. Then the king demands that anyone who is against his rule be put to death! It wasn't even his country! I'm sure you can understand why I find this confusing from an atheistic perspective.
But why would this God want anything? He's omnipotent, isn't he? This part has bothered me a lot - how can an omnipotent God want anything? How is it that all things are not immediately satisfied for an omnipotent God? Unless God isn't omnipotent, that is.
How do you get to the problem of knowing what God wants without succumbing to the "pride" that you know what God wants? I find this part confusing, too.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
(I can't help myself...)
Wait, this guys revelation was that doing pot, opium, coke, peyote wasn't working for him? And he doesn't consider the huge amounts of foriegn chemicals in his body might have had something to do with the feeling? His body was just trying to fight back and gain some territory it had lost to the drugs.
Oh, well, he left one addiction/crutch for another. I'm not sure which is better, the drugs or religion...
What's odd is that I know another guy with a virtually identical story: was a big partyer, had an experience and now praises Mohammed.
Does Phillip really think god touched him? I doubt it. He just doesn't trust himself to control his impulses. Since he can't make up his own reasons to stop, he just grabs the most convenient story available: Xinanity. Now he can scare himself into thinking God will punish him if he lapses.
Whatever. Besides, all those drugs are fine if you can manage yourself. I know a lot of people who used them and stopped without Gods intervention.
It's a shame Phillips god spends time on drugged-up losers and not on starving children in Africa, or kids slowly rotting away from disease.
Thank god Philip got his, though! That was mightily important to Gods Plan!
God: "Fuck the kids, I gotta save this Phillip guy..."
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
Hey everyone, I wanted to come here and thank you for all of your responses. I did not want to just disappear, but rather give a reason why I am going to be absent. After work, I was invited to join Phi Theta Kappa, because of my academics in school and there are a multitude of things that need to get done over the next week to a week and a half for the induction, which means that I may not be back for a while. I will be back, though.
Until then, peace and love.
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." - Kierkegaard
Then I shall eagerly await your return.