Posted on 05/16/2007 6:54:51 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
Actually, Christianity claims that all TRUE religious experience is within the scope of 1) Jesus Christ (recorded in the Bible) 2) the rest of the Bible (most of which is about Jesus, either preparatory or celebratory) and 3) general revelation in nature congruent with 1 and 2 above. Anything outside this triumvirate is willing self-deception, and a desire to satisfy the "image of God" element in men which instinctively worships, while in fact, fleeing from the true God.
Harsh, ain't it?
If it were possible for me to "mind meld" with you and share the revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord, I would.
But God didn't make it that way, His choice of a family is rather selective. It is a straight path and narrow gate and few will find it.
Jesus Christ could have revealed Himself to everyone and ushered in the new heaven and earth some 2,000 years ago from our space/time coordinates. But that was not the plan from the beginning - First Cause, Final Cause, Alpha and Omega. There is a family to be gathered.
Look, God the Father has revealed Himself in four ways:
2. Through the indwelling Holy Spirit. He leads us into all Truth.
3. Through Scriptures, His recorded words.
4. Through the Creation itself, both spiritual and physical.
It seems to me that you are not looking for truth, but for certainty (verifiability), ahayes. Other than the certainty of our own mortal death, I don't know where you're going to find certainty in this world.
Again, “My truth is true because I say it’s true.”
LOL, if there be such a thing as a "common poet," can there be such a thing as a "common scientist?"
Surely you don't mean to suggest that poetry is now illegitimate, because it does not use the severly reduced language of science? That I should immediately stop reading T.S. Eliot, Shakespeare, Dante, Milton, Donne, Homer, Hesoid, Aeschylus, Euripides, et al.???
I get the distinction between poetic language and the language of science -- the latter of which usually ends up being translated into the language of mathematics anyway. Each is up to doing its job in the field it addresses. Do you mean to suggest that one is intrinsically "better" than the other -- in general?
If the difference boils down to the difference between savoir and connaitre, bear in mind that our English word connoisseur is based on the same root as the latter. A connoisseur is someone who possesses knowledge and awareness of a field that goes beyond mere technical competence.
Thanks for the excerpt from Dorothy L. Sayers, grey_whiskers, and also for writing!
You've described it as powerful and personal.
As to objective Truth, it should be obvious to everyone that only God can reveal it, because only He is capable of speaking from the aspect outside of Creation, i.e. "all that there is."
Apparently he's chosen not to reveal himself to a heck of a lot of people while they've received revelations of other Gods.
My point is there's no way of qualitatively distinguishing a Christian divine revelation from any other religion's experiences.
I question the utility of divine revelation as a standard for ultimate truth, then, since it is so barely attainable and even then unverifiable.
Then in all probability, you will not find ultimate truth. Alamo-Girl has suggested (if you were listening closely) that truth is something that finds one (for God is truth), not the other way around. But if you've got your mind closed to God, then that door is shut.
Well I guess that serves me just right, then.
I could have sworn I was a true Christian for more than 20 years, I guess I was mistaken. *roll eyes*
God authenticates Himself. The creature cannot authenticate the Creator.
Great observation, DreamsofPolycarp! Oh, so true....
The very first philosophical assumption a scientist makes is the the universe is intelligible, and therefore is completely, exhaustively knowable by man. Another is the assumption of the universal validity of physical laws. A third very common philosophical assumption is that the universe is made of "building blocks" called matter, and nothing else (i.e., the philosophical doctrine of materialism).
Not one of these assumptions is based on direct observation and experiment.
Scientists "do philosophy" every day, just to do their jobs! They just seem not to realize it....
true Christians get confused, don't they? [grin]
So you accept something as the ultimate standard for truth which you admit you cannot verify and expect others to respect that? That’s the definition of gullibility.
Don’t worry, I sorted it out in the end. Maybe you will too.
BTW, I do believe mathematics is the best "language" for science because it is highly portable from generation to generation, application to application, culture to culture, etc.
But what a loss it would be not to have all the other languages and word concepts.
Looks that way, Alamo-Girl. But it ain't gonna happen: God is not an "object" that can be studied by science at all. Science's mission is with the physical world. God is not a datum of the physical world.
If I were you I would be a bit concerned to have to admit my divine revelation cannot be qualitatively distinguished from a psychotic episode or drug-induced hallucination.
Once again, what criteria do you use to determine your God is “God” and their God is “god”? You have none!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.