Personal Revelation vs. Biblical Revelation? (ritual, reject, America, experience)

[muichimotsu]

And we're supposed to trust revelation of men who principally treated women and children as objects and for half the Bible are following the Sinai covenant, which suspiciously enough was a mistake of God that it later fixed with jesus, supposedly?

We're supposed to trust guys who associated normal mental illness that can be treated with time and therapy with demon possession?

We're to trust people that are writing in a time when their cultural and religious identity were all they had and thusly they had to write from a perspective that they were the only right religion, as opposed to today, where religion is a globalized thing and can be understood better through ecumenism and comparative religion?

Are they really better than us, or just a part of greater progression of wisdom that can still potentially be found today?

[gnostic]

Since we are talking about revelations, personal and biblical, then I would like some input on this.

Joan d'Arc. She had what seemed to be a personal revelation. Her revelation had nothing to do with the Bible. Her revelation was that she had to save France from the English invaders. At the time, the English had occupied or annexed much of the French territories. She had revelation, more of hearing voices of Michael, Catherine and Margaret, than a vision of what was to come.

As you all know she was tried as a heretic, by the English and their French collaborators, and later executed - burnt at the stake in 1431. But her involvement in the Hundred Year's War did turn around the war in France's favour.

Inquiries into the trial in the mid-1450s, led to her sentence being annulled by the then pope.

It would seem that the revealling any personal revelation have risk, which people would use against them. Particularly, if that person is a woman, or a girl. Often these who are not believed are branded as heretics, and in Joan's case, as a witch too.

Did she really hear the voices of angel Michael, saints Catherine and Margaret? I doubt anyone can answer that.

Or did it come from Satan, as some of those who tried her?

Or was she delusional or suffered from schizophrenia, which people today would usually associated with hearing voices? Anyone calling himself prophet today is immediately considered insane. So I don't know how Christ's second coming will be achieved, if people will him crazy.

As I said, her personal revelation had little to do with religion. She was not trying to start a new religion, like Jesus and his apostles, Muhammad or Joseph Smith, but it seem enough to condemn her for her personal revelation.

[cardero]

Sunstone writes: For instance, suppose one had a revelation that everything was connected to everything else and that there was no such thing as positive evil (i.e. evil that exists in and of itself), but that evil was instead a lack or absence of good. Furthermore, suppose this could be taken to contradict the biblical revelation that Satan exists and so does evil. IF this were the case, which revelation, the personal or the biblical, would be the deciding revelation?

Many revelations do not come with their own packages of proof so this would have to be up to the individual who received the revelation. In most cases this is a solitary pursuit and it not only includes a good understanding of previous revelations or knowledge but of current k(NOW)ledge or “knowledge in the now” and how it relates to you personally and (possibly) socially.

Sunstone writes: If one claims the biblical revelation must be the superseding revelation, then does that mean biblical revelation is complete and will never be changed or modified?

No one ever said that Bible was complete, there is a scripture that says that the Bible should not be changed or modified but they do not give a description of which books this would include. In that respect, I do not believe anyone but the original author should update or offer a different version of their manuscripts.

Sunstone writes: Does someone else's personal revelation have the same validity for us as does biblical revelation? Should we believe what is revealed to Smith by personal experience just as much as we believe what is revealed to us by the bible?

You would think this would be the case but it is not. People are not falling over for the word of God they are falling over their religions interpretation of the word of God, without so much as reading, reasoning, contesting or acknowledging the revelations revealed to “Smith, Johnson or Brown”.

Sunstone writes: If one claims personal revelation has no validity, then how does one reconcile that view to the fact that so much of the bible is account after account of personal revelation?

In some cases Faith is used to spare someone from reconciliation, too much time practicing it, not nearly enough time understanding or questioning it.

[cardero]

Pah writes: Biblical revelation must then be second-hand revelation until it is confirmed by persoanl revelation.

Which doesn’t make it personal or confirmed but makes it a third-hand imitation to the former.