Divine Revelation (tradition, evolution, doctrine, churches, God)

[meogi]

Stupid computer decided to log me out before I hit preview this time... had to re-write it from start this time. God does not want me saying this stuff or something?

Originally Posted by No*s

I'm leary there. If I feel I've got a revelation, I tend to check it up against the Church, lest I succumb to prelest. Prelest is a state of deception, wherein we take something from us or possibly from something other than God as something from God. I am quite fallible and quite a ways away from union with God.

If a thing is indeed revelation, I would think that my heart is generally in a safe enough place that I will understand it. If I can't understand something given to me, then it is either not meant for me or it isn't from God. The interpretation, there, would be kept at a minimal.

So how does the church distinguish between revelations and non-revelations? And is it not just thier interpretation? How does any interpretation give credit to the idea of the supernatural?

Originally Posted by No*s

In the only case I can think of where it would be an issue would be where it is an emotion, one where I would feel something outside myself pulling or pointing me. In the Divine Liturgy, for instance, I say I can feel God's presence in a potent way. I feel something at the very least. In this situation, it is me responding to something, and I am interpreting what I am perceiving. The perception is the only thing certain, and from that, I draw conclusions that are subjective, and in this case "God." Unfortunately, for that last kind, I don't know of a means of testing it or anything of the sort.

So you 'feel' something, and then iterpret it to be god... how do you come to this conclusion? Is it a rational conclusion or something you can't explain, and as such give a supernatural explanation to help you rationalize it, or something else?

Originally Posted by No*s

I wouldn't go that far. Revelation is something that I'd notice objectively. A hunch is more a feeling or something vague. Revelation is clear, crisp, and firm. It can be a feeling, of course, but it's never vague or simply pointing; it always is a connection to something else.

I was equating "internal 'hunch'" with personal interpretation... e.g. - the hunch is your interpretation of the revelation. But I guess you're saying that revelation is much clearer, along the lines of "BAM! God does exist and I know it!" Still, it's just personal interpretation, and it may rationalize it for you, but it doesn't help with evidencing it to anyone else (like me). I guess I'll just wait, and hope I get one, less I continue to be a heathan (Of course, I'll still need your guys' help to give me some way of correctly interpreting the moment, when it does happen, if ever)

Off to class... I'll get to everyone else later.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by meogi

Stupid computer decided to log me out before I hit preview this time... had to re-write it from start this time. God does not want me saying this stuff or something?

Nah, it's those daemons running in the background. They just want to be mischevious .

Originally Posted by meogi

So how does the church distinguish between revelations and non-revelations? And is it not just thier interpretation? How does any interpretation give credit to the idea of the supernatural?

It works on several levels. First, it must be in accordance with what the Church has always known. So, for instance, if I feel that it has been revealed to me that Christ was an angel, this would go against preceding revelations. Preceding revelation normally deals with events in history (Christ's resurrection, the prophecies of various people to their times and beyond, and that sort of thing).

The life of Christ exists within the individuals of the Church, and the Church works by consensus. While people are fallible, Christ has sway over the Church as a whole. The revelations accepted by the Church simply become accepted by everyone. After the people have said "yes, yes, yes" long enough, it simply becomes official (saints, for instance, are "glorified" only after the people have recognized them as such).

Said revelation will almost never be the source of division. That can only occur with a revelation from a source other than God.

Those are the basic principles by which the Church (and spiritual elders) determine these things. It gradually is accepted or rejected over time. That which is accepted is a standard I can measure myself against.

Originally Posted by meogi

So you 'feel' something, and then iterpret it to be god... how do you come to this conclusion? Is it a rational conclusion or something you can't explain, and as such give a supernatural explanation to help you rationalize it, or something else?

I refer to something more like perception. Unfortunately, this is rarely objective. It is possible it comes from within me, it is also possible it comes from without me. I simply perceive something else. It's not so much a feeling, but a perception, kind of like those times when you know someone is in the room with you, but you haven't observed them.

Orthodoxy refers to this sense's capacity as the "nous." It means "mind," but not a calculating mind. It also means "heart." It's our capacity to sense and know spiritual things. It is, however, largely inert in us and may be activated not just by God but also by the Adversary or even other people, but we believe it is supposed to be theocentric. That, however, is what we believe, and I can't prove it.

And yes, I choose to believe that it has a supernatural origin. It seems to fit the situation in hand, but I can't pretend it's the only explanation. It may well be a physical sense or emotion I am completely misinterpreting. The interpretation I take, though, is the one that makes the most sense out of the experience.

Originally Posted by meogi

I was equating "internal 'hunch'" with personal interpretation... e.g. - the hunch is your interpretation of the revelation. But I guess you're saying that revelation is much clearer, along the lines of "BAM! God does exist and I know it!" Still, it's just personal interpretation, and it may rationalize it for you, but it doesn't help with evidencing it to anyone else (like me). I guess I'll just wait, and hope I get one, less I continue to be a heathan (Of course, I'll still need your guys' help to give me some way of correctly interpreting the moment, when it does happen, if ever)

Ah, I see.

Yes, there is a good bit of a hunch in it by that definition. I have to interpret what I feel in the general sense I have experienced. I've yet to hear a voice coming from heaven, see the future, know something impossible about someone around the world, work a miracle, or anything of the sort. All I've experienced is that perception and the thoughts that go with it. If any of those more miraculous things were to happen to me, I would be quick to check it against the Church. Indeed, I would be fearful that I was suffering some sort of deception.

Originally Posted by meogi

Off to class... I'll get to everyone else later.

Have fun

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Many Christians use revelation as a way to acquire belief. But the veracity of that belief still needs to be placed in a matter of personal faith regardless of whether it is promogated or not. Revelation is dicussed as a standard for deriving truth in http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=35 an article entitled Epistemology - Criteria of Truth.