What is a "revelation"?

[Tyrion]

It doesn’t begin with worship; it begins with a small degree of trust in God’s existence, and, increasingly, in His goodness.

With a real revelation one would not need “trust” that God exist, one would “know”. Just like I asked brb3, what is so “wonderful” about “blind trust”? And even if I would know that God exists, I would not be able to accept that he is “good”. He is certainly not “good” as goodness is defined in human terms. If any human would behave as God does, he would be considered a horrible monster. And the goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold to indicate that only the actions are measured, the person of “perpetrator” does not matter.

 

[brb3]

You bring up an important point. Why is it that one can only “accept” as long as there there is no actual proof? Once you “know”, then you cannot “accept” any more. I am aware that “faith” is considered to be superior to knowledge, but this is absurd. After all, this “faith” is the one mentioned in Hebrews 11:1, which is blind faith.

Of course you may ask. Yes, I was baptized Calvinist or Presbyterian, whichever label you prefer. For a while I was a believer, and later I dropped “out”, so to speak.

Then I take it you had baptism as adult, full consent, desired it, had faith in Christ & Cross, …not a coerced one, not one undertaken with doubts …done on a lark idea, just to see if there was power / life-changing redemption linked to it ?

Do you recall it well, or too young of age ? Were you also Confirmed, with HS — by elders hands ?

 

[fhansen]

With a real revelation one would not need “trust” that God exist, one would “know”. Just like I asked brb3, what is so “wonderful” about “blind trust”? And even if I would know that God exists, I would not be able to accept that he is “good”. He is certainly not “good” as goodness is defined in human terms. If any human would behave as God does, he would be considered a horrible monster. And the goddess of justice (Justitia) is depicted with a blindfold to indicate that only the actions are measured, the person of “perpetrator” does not matter.

The idea is that lack of faith/trust in, and, ultimately, love for, God, is what’s responsible for all moral evil in our world, God wanting us to choose the good rather than forcing it on us, meaning that we can also choose evil. Faith/trust in Him is an integral part of recognizing that evil comes from man’s side of the fence. Further “real” revelations issue from that first one. None of them come from blind trust, although the vision does become increasingly clear.

 

[Tyrion]

Then I take it you had baptism as adult, full consent, desired it, had faith in Christ & Cross, …not a coerced one, not one undertaken with doubts …done on a lark idea, just to see if there was power / life-changing redemption linked to it ?

Do you recall it well, or too young of age ? Were you also Confirmed, with HS — by elders hands ?

It happened very shortly after I was born. Yes I had a confirmation sometime in my teenager years. Cannot remember exactly, it was just a routine thing to do. Don’t know what the “HS” stands for.

But I can clearly remember how uncomfortable I felt when it also came to pretty much mandatory “witnessing” in bible classes, when we were supposed to get up and “blame ourselves” for some unspecified acts, or lack of them. I was way too young to know the word “hypocrisy” at that time, but I obviously grasped the meaning of it.

Buy the way, I only have good memories about the main pastor of the church I attended at that time. He was a beautiful, old gentleman, very kind and loving. I never had any bad experiences from him or any other man of the cloth. My “falling away” was simply due to the fact that I lost my faith, which was not very strong in the first place. Reason cannot be reconciled with the absolute, glaring lack of evidence.

Let me ask you: “do you realize that you are precisely as skeptical as I am, when it comes to claims of other religions?”

 

[Tyrion]

The idea is that lack of faith/trust in, and, ultimately, love for, God, is what’s responsible for all moral evil in our world, God wanting us to choose the good rather than forcing it on us, meaning that we can also choose evil. Faith/trust in Him is an integral part of recognizing that evil comes from man’s side of the fence. Further “real” revelations issue from that first one. None of them come from blind trust, although the vision does become increasingly clear.

Sorry. I know all that, and reject it. There are lots of reasons for it, but I will only mention one. The “degree of freedom” we enjoy is all messed up. If the final goal is to love God, it would be perfectly sufficient if we had the freedom to worship (because that is what love boils down to, in this respect) or not. There is no need to give us the ability and the freedom to torture other humans, or animals. I do not “love” God at all, but that does not make me a monster. I actively help and support the homeless in our area, without expecting anything in return.

But again, why should we be deprived of actual knowledge of God’s existence and/or demands from us? Second-hand knowledge is always inferior to direct knowledge. I know you believe that the church was given the authority, but only catholics assert it, not even other christians. Besides, you cannot hide behind the idea that the church is guided by the holy spirit, because there is again too much evidence to the contrary.

 

[fhansen]

Let me ask you: “do you realize that you are precisely as skeptical as I am, when it comes to claims of other religions?”

I don’t understand why you think this is relevant. Do you think it’s necessarily impossible for a person to arrive at the truth amidst the various alternatives, rather than presuming that none of them can be true?

 

[fhansen]

Sorry. I know all that, and reject it. There are lots of reasons for it, but I will only mention one. The “degree of freedom” we enjoy is all messed up. If the final goal is to love God, it would be perfectly sufficient if we had the freedom to worship (because that is what love boils down to, in this respect) or not. There is no need to give us the ability and the freedom to torture other humans, or animals. I do not “love” God at all, but that does not make me a monster. I actively help and support the homeless in our area, without expecting anything in return.

But again, why should we be deprived of actual knowledge of God’s existence and/or demands from us? Second-hand knowledge is always inferior to direct knowledge. I know you believe that the church was given the authority, but only catholics assert it, not even other christians. Besides, you cannot hide behind the idea that the church is guided by the holy spirit, because there is again too much evidence to the contrary.

There’s not evidence to the contrary in her teachings, which is all that’s claimed to be guaranteed of infallibility, teachings that inspired innumerable acts of altruism beginning in a time when conquering ones enemy was certainly considered to be a higher value than loving him. I can list the actions of humans so inspired by the ideals given through her if you wish, but I’d assume you already know.

And worship is not the equivalent of love. Rather, worship is the result of love and love is the result of truly knowing God. And if we have the freedom to love then we certainly have the freedom to not love, with whatever behavior such freedom might involve or result in.

All moral evil in this world-by far the worst kind- is caused by humans. My wife was reading an excerpt from “The Road”, a book written by Jack London chronicling some of his hobo years. He was staying with some gypsies when he witnessed the leader of the band whipping a woman member mercilessly; the man was, as his friends were described, a brute/beast, dim and soulless, unmoral, with no more than a faint flickering of intelligence. London went on to say that he believed "that the chief distinguishing trait between man and the other animals is that man is the only animal that maltreats the females of his kind. It is something of which no wolf nor cowardly coyote is ever guilty. It is something that even the dog, degenerated by domestication, will not do. The dog still retains the wild instinct in this matter, while”“man has lost most of his wild instincts—at least, most of the good ones.”

In perhaps an off-handed unintentional way London describes a concept similar to that defined by the doctrine of Original Sin- simply because he perceives a change in man, a change away from a higher ideal that we sense man should be capable of living up to, a change towards unreasonableness/irrationality, a change towards behavior that the most vicious animal would never contemplate-and the only reason man does such things is simply because he can contemplate them!-despite the fact that he should have even less natural right, by virtue of his freedom and ability to reason if nothing else, than an animal has to commit them.

We have a term, “humane”, which is meant to describe attitudes and behavior that are inherently just, right, tolerant, kind, etc, based on what we consider to be natural human traits and yet, ironically, it’s only man, himself, who commits acts of inhumanity, in large ways and small, by how we treat each other.

The doctrine of OS likewise maintains that man has changed, that man should be better, that such a thing as moral evil exists where man’s behavior opposes or goes beyond reason, unnecessarily causing harm to others.

I agree with this. The moral evil, aka “sin”, that we witness and probably even participate in in some capacity or another, itself tends to prove that man is the problem, not God. The fact that we behave in ways that we should not serves to prove that a higher way exists, a way beyond ourselves, beyond our invention, and yet a way that we were created to abide by-and yet can choose not to abide by.

 

[Tyrion]

I don’t understand why you think this is relevant. Do you think it’s necessarily impossible for a person to arrive at the truth amidst the various alternatives, rather than presuming that none of them can be true?

Of course it is possible. And that is the point - the evidence which is presented. You have a conversation with someone, who believes in some different deity. Both of you present your best evidence. Both of you are convinced that your evidence is compelling, and both of you find the other person’s evidence lacking. Both of you are skeptical about the other person’s position. Do you see my point? Your presented evidence is only convincing to those, who already believe your deity. And it is not due to “stubbornness” or “pride”, or “secret desire to continue one’s sinful ways” - as it is argued so frequently… it is simply due to the fact that evidence is insufficient.

That is why I pointed out that you are just as skeptical as I am.

There’s not evidence to the contrary in her teachings, which is all that’s claimed to be guaranteed of infallibility, teachings that inspired innumerable acts of altruism beginning in a time when conquering ones enemy was certainly considered to be a higher value than loving him. I can list the actions of humans so inspired by the ideals given through her if you wish, but I’d assume you already know.

Yes, there is, but we do not need to go there. You argue that humans were inspired by those teachings and that inspriation made them better… true in some cases and not true in others. The fallacy you commit here is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. You assume a causation, which is simply not there. And, of course the “claimed infallibility” is just a claim, nothing else.

And worship is not the equivalent of love. Rather, worship is the result of love and love is the result of truly knowing God.

And how can one “truly know” God when he is hiding above the clouds? That is the crux of the problem. Where is that real, undeniable revelation, so we can start to go on the path to “know” God?

And if we have the freedom to love then we certainly have the freedom to not love, with whatever behavior such freedom might involve or result in.

That is the other point. The “not-to-love” God does not have to include the atrocities many humans commit. It would be perfectly enough to be kind, nice, helpful toward others, while neglecting to go to mass, or pray, or whatever ritual one could participate in. In other words, quite contrary to the teaching of the church - “works are sufficient”, and faith is irrelevant. But if God disagrees, then there are the fodders to the flames of hell - all those who “only work” without faith…

 

[brb3]

It happened very shortly after I was born. Yes I had a confirmation sometime in my teenager years. Cannot remember exactly, it was just a routine thing to do. Don’t know what the “HS” stands for.

But I can clearly remember how uncomfortable I felt when it also came to pretty much mandatory “witnessing” in bible classes, when we were supposed to get up and “blame ourselves” for some unspecified acts, or lack of them. I was way too young to know the word “hypocrisy” at that time, but I obviously grasped the meaning of it.

Buy the way, I only have good memories about the main pastor of the church I attended at that time. He was a beautiful, old gentleman, very kind and loving. I never had any bad experiences from him or any other man of the cloth. My “falling away” was simply due to the fact that I lost my faith, which was not very strong in the first place. Reason cannot be reconciled with the absolute, glaring lack of evidence.

Let me ask you: “do you realize that you are precisely as skeptical as I am, when it comes to claims of other religions?”

Holy Spirit(HS)…
I too felt uncomfortable with my early, adolescent faith. Not that I doubted God 's word in Bible, but I needed 100 % proof thereof, I wanted the same evidence of Christ that the Apostles had been given. It made no sense to me that God would Publicly reveal himself to they, but not to us thereafter.
So, my faith waned, and I fell back into mortal sinning. I asked for a ‘visible’ miracle…but, we can’t demand things of God. My prayers for a public revelation were not granted.

 

[Tyrion]

Holy Spirit(HS)…
I too felt uncomfortable with my early, adolescent faith. Not that I doubted God 's word in Bible, but I needed 100 % proof thereof, I wanted the same evidence of Christ that the Apostles had been given. It made no sense to me that God would Publicly reveal himself to they, but not to us thereafter.
So, my faith waned, and I fell back into mortal sinning. I asked for a ‘visible’ miracle…but, we can’t demand things of God. My prayers for a public revelation were not granted.

The word “demand” is too strong. Jesus encouraged us to ask for “anything”, and that is what you and I and zillions of others did. It would be understandable if truly frivolous things would not be granted, but a simple revelation? What could be more innocent than that?

 

[brb3]

The word “demand” is too strong. Jesus encouraged us to ask for “anything”, and that is what you and I and zillions of others did. It would be understandable if truly frivolous things would not be granted, but a simple revelation? What could be more innocent than that?

Yes, first I politely asked …later, I raised my stakes, I start rebelling …needing hard proof. Either an unmistakable vision of Jesus, or that he would break the law of gravity before eyes …I wanted my heavy Bible to levitate, once …then twice … so that I could believe my eyes.

 

[fhansen]

Of course it is possible. And that is the point - the evidence which is presented. You have a conversation with someone, who believes in some different deity. Both of you present your best evidence. Both of you are convinced that your evidence is compelling, and both of you find the other person’s evidence lacking. Both of you are skeptical about the other person’s position. Do you see my point? Your presented evidence is only convincing to those, who already believe your deity. And it is not due to “stubbornness” or “pride”, or “secret desire to continue one’s sinful ways” - as it is argued so frequently… it is simply due to the fact that evidence is insufficient.

I don’t believe that, tho. I believe that all faith in a higher being is positive and also natural for man, just that some are more exact in their understandings than others. You, OTOH, apparently believe faith to be worthless/irrelevant.

Yes, there is, but we do not need to go there. You argue that humans were inspired by those teachings and that inspriation made them better… true in some cases and not true in others. The fallacy you commit here is “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. You assume a causation, which is simply not there. And, of course the “claimed infallibility” is just a claim, nothing else.

Of course the causation is there. A tremendous up-swelling of humanitarianism began with Christianity. Countless hours of giving time and money, huge amounts of wealth spent, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, orphanages, schools, hospitals, the university system, strides in science, art, education, the pursuit of excellence in general as, increasingly, an order was perceived to exist behind the scenes of this universe and the sense of futility born of fear of the unknown was met with the sense that hope permeated everything instead. I’m not talking about utopia; rather about more light and less darkness/ignorance.

And how can one “truly know” God when he is hiding above the clouds? That is the crux of the problem. Where is that real, undeniable revelation, so we can start to go on the path to “know” God?

He can give it-He did for me, the clouds opened up. But I’d given Him the benefit of the doubt first while you seem to see no reason to.

That is the other point. The “not-to-love” God does not have to include the atrocities many humans commit. It would be perfectly enough to be kind, nice, helpful toward others, while neglecting to go to mass, or pray, or whatever ritual one could participate in. In other words, quite contrary to the teaching of the church - “works are sufficient”, and faith is irrelevant. But if God disagrees, then there are the fodders to the flames of hell - all those who “only work” without faith…

Yes, not-to-love God doesn’t guarantee atrocities, at least not by any particular individual at any certain point in time although, IMO, it eventually leads to lack of moral integrity of humankind in general. The real point is that authentic, uncompromised love of God, very rare IMO, does completely exclude atrocities by its nature.

 

[Tyrion]

I don’t believe that, tho. I believe that all faith in a higher being is positive and also natural for man, just that some are more exact in their understandings than others. You, OTOH, apparently believe faith to be worthless/irrelevant.

Yes, indeed. I am talking about the Hebrews 11:1 type of blind faith which has no place in my life.

He can give it-He did for me, the clouds opened up. But I’d given Him the benefit of the doubt first while you seem to see no reason to.

I am open to the possibility, can’t be fairer than that. The ball is in his court. If he would show up, I am ready. If he does not, I decline to feel responsible.

Yes, not-to-love God doesn’t guarantee atrocities, at least not by any particular individual at any certain point in time although, IMO, it eventually leads to lack of moral integrity of humankind in general.

Obviously my opinion differs, since our opinion about what is “moral” is not the same.

The real point is that authentic, uncompromised love of God, very rare IMO, does completely exclude atrocities by its nature.

Unfortunately it does not. One can believe very strongly that one performs God’s will and become a horrible horrible monster (like the inquistiors). That is due to the fact that God does not offer a quick “feedback” and does not give a “slap on the wrist” when someone erroneously believes that he is doing what God expects him to do. This is all part of the “aloofness” on God’s part. To train anyone the teacher must give continuous feedback.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, indeed. I am talking about the Hebrews 11:1 type of blind faith which has no place in my life. .

But why do you assume that 11:1 is talking about blind faith, in the sense of believing for no reason? It actually asserts that faith is the gifted ability to believe in spite of what we don’t see-what we can’t prove. IOW it comes by grace, and then our cooperation with it.

Unfortunately it does not. One can believe very strongly that one performs God’s will and become a horrible horrible monster (like the inquistiors). That is due to the fact that God does not offer a quick “feedback” and does not give a “slap on the wrist” when someone erroneously believes that he is doing what God expects him to do. This is all part of the “aloofness” on God’s part. To train anyone the teacher must give continuous feedback. .

It has nothing to do with what we believe about ourselves-people believe all kinds of things about themselves; justifying the worst behavior in the name of whatever authority they may have on hand, including God. It has to do with a change, which happens progressively, into a being who fully loves, where every act is based on that virtue or never compromises it in any case. Again, a work of grace and our cooperation with it, something you can’t yet affirm, something I can’t deny. The inquisitors weren’t very far up the scale presented by this standard, if it can be said that they even started.

 

[Tyrion]

But why do you assume that 11:1 is talking about blind faith, in the sense of believing for no reason? It actually asserts that faith is the gifted ability to believe in spite of what we don’t see-what we can’t prove. IOW it comes by grace, and then our cooperation with it.

“Faith” is to believe something for which there is 1) insufficient evidence, 2) no evidence or 3) there is evidence to the contrary. I am willing to believe something for which there might be insufficient evidence, but never the other two types. But observe, we are back to sqare one… you only have faith to believe the assertions of your own religion - you are just as skeptical as I am about the claims of a different religion. So positing “faith” as a general panacea simply does not work, either for me, of for you.

It has nothing to do with what we believe about ourselves-people believe all kinds of things about themselves; justifying the worst behavior in the name of whatever authority they may have on hand, including God. It has to do with a change, which happens progressively, into a being who fully loves, where every act is based on that virtue or never compromises it in any case. Again, a work of grace and our cooperation with it, something you can’t yet affirm, something I can’t deny. The inquisitors weren’t very far up the scale presented by this standard, if it can be said that they even started.

You said that if one really and truly loves God, then that person will not commit atrocities. The example of the inquisitors flatly refutes that argument. They loved God, just like any honest and devout believer. Millions of believers committed atrocities not despite loving God, but because they loved God, and they were totally convinced that they are doing God’s work. The problem again is that God did not come down and correct their incorrect belief.

We are back at the starting point. Where is the absolute, unmistakable revelation to show us that God exists and how does he want us to behave?

 

[fhansen]

“Faith” is to believe something for which there is 1) insufficient evidence, 2) no evidence or 3) there is evidence to the contrary. I am willing to believe something for which there might be insufficient evidence, but never the other two types. But observe, we are back to sqare one… you only have faith to believe the assertions of your own religion - you are just as skeptical as I am about the claims of a different religion. So positing “faith” as a general panacea simply does not work, either for me, of for you.

Well, I don’t know where your definitions come from but either way there is sufficient evidence to believe in a creator-god at least and Christian faith has nothing to do with believing anything where evidence points to the contrary.

You said that if one really and truly loves God, then that person will not commit atrocities. The example of the inquisitors flatly refutes that argument. They loved God, just like any honest and devout believer. Millions of believers committed atrocities not despite loving God, but because they loved God, and they were totally convinced that they are doing God’s work. The problem again is that God did not come down and correct their incorrect belief.

I have no idea why you would say that the inquisitors loved God- that’s sheer presumption. The entire Christian religion has the purpose of sifting the individual away from human hypocrisy-from the universal issue of humans saying one thing but doing another, including attempting to appear holy with no internal change. Generally speaking, the St Francis’s and St Teresa’s represent the real Christians but even then we don’t know for sure-only God can judge the human heart. Why you would accept the professions of anyone, including religious leaders, out of hand is beyond me. Jesus never did that; He did just the opposite in fact, railing against the hypocrisy of religious leaders, and always unimpressed with the motives of man in general. Changed hearts impressed Him, humility rather than pride and self-righteousness. Matthew 25 paints some pretty good pictures of how this all works out in the end.

 

[brb3]

“Faith” is to believe something for which there is 1) insufficient evidence, 2) no evidence or 3) there is evidence to the contrary. I am willing to believe something for which there might be insufficient evidence, but never the other two types. But observe, we are back to sqare one… you only have faith to believe the assertions of your own religion - you are just as skeptical as I am about the claims of a different religion. So positing “faith” as a general panacea simply does not work, either for me, of for you.

You said that if one really and truly loves God, then that person will not commit atrocities. The example of the inquisitors flatly refutes that argument. They loved God, just like any honest and devout believer. Millions of believers committed atrocities not despite loving God, but because they loved God, and they were totally convinced that they are doing God’s work. The problem again is that God did not come down and correct their incorrect belief.

We are back at the starting point. Where is the absolute, unmistakable revelation to show us that God exists and how does he want us to behave?

You make good point here. Christ DESIRES we come to know him via Both faith & reason. So too has said our Pope, JP2.

And, just as scripture teaches …to ‘all’ who seek Christ with their ‘whole’ heart — Christ Reveals himself to them.

The Revealer is the HS, …thats why I asked earlier if you had ever been Confirmed in HS, when young. You seemed to recall you had, as teenager ? But, that becomes the key clue to your ‘awareness’ of God. If your formation, in Confirmation, was ineffectual…for whatever reason,------- this needs to be your starting point in your current quest, for knowledge, revelation, … of God.

 

[Tyrion]

Well, I don’t know where your definitions come from but either way there is sufficient evidence to believe in a creator-god at least

Only in your opinion. Just as you find all the evidence presented by other religions to be insufficient… but I already pointed it out to you… no need to repeat myself.

I have no idea why you would say that the inquisitors loved God- that’s sheer presumption.

Was there ever a devout christian, who hated God? Come on…

There is no need to continue.

 

[Tyrion]

And, just as scripture teaches …to ‘all’ who seek Christ with their ‘whole’ heart — Christ Reveals himself to them.

If only I had a dollar for every time this was asserted… so if God does not reveal himself to me, then it is MY FAULT, since I did not seek him with my “whole heart”. What an ingenious cop-out… blame the skeptic for God’s inaction. Let’s just drop it… I am tired to see the same ridiculous “argument” over and over again. I ask, and get no answer… that is all what counts. Case closed.

 

[davidv]

“Faith” is to believe something for which there is 1) insufficient evidence, 2) no evidence or 3) there is evidence to the contrary. I am willing to believe something for which there might be insufficient evidence, but never the other two types. But observe, we are back to sqare one… you only have faith to believe the assertions of your own religion - you are just as skeptical as I am about the claims of a different religion. So positing “faith” as a general panacea simply does not work, either for me, of for you.

Why the strawmen? The above is not the Catholic definition of faith, nor is faith offered as a panacea.

You said that if one really and truly loves God, then that person will not commit atrocities. The example of the inquisitors flatly refutes that argument. They loved God, just like any honest and devout believer. Millions of believers committed atrocities not despite loving God, but because they loved God, and they were totally convinced that they are doing God’s work. The problem again is that God did not come down and correct their incorrect belief.

We are back at the starting point. Where is the absolute, unmistakable revelation to show us that God exists and how does he want us to behave?

What is the “love of God” that leads to atrocities. Please cite authoritative sources to justify you definition. Love of God = Love of neighbor. Love of neighbor cannot result in atrocities