Deeper Dive
Defining
Revelation
“Revelation could be seen as a matter of Perception save for the detail that in our context, Revelation is the receiving of input from the accurate source and then accepting and acting upon that as Truth without adding our personal creativity to the Truth. The expression may be creative but the Revelation should not be changed to match our perspective on what we find livable. Revelation cannot be augmented by the desires of the recipient—it must stand as True, Unalterable and Actionable.”
In our consideration, Revelation is a matter of faith but then, in reality, perception is even more the object of belief.
The Quest is for Truth and then anything that follows that decision. Oops, there it is again. How do you qualify the object you consider Truth? We’ve done a superficial look at Truth through the filters of perception but in all honesty, we readily admit that even to accept this premise that Truth must come through Revelation from beyond ourselves is also a belief and is not provable unless we know everything that is knowable. No, this is not avoiding the definition but rather acknowledging the limits of our ability to discover what our limitations cannot exceed. Our intellect, our senses, the length of our life do not agree with knowing the infinite which Truth must be if it does exist. We simply do not have the parameters to gather, analyze, know and then act accordingly upon that which exceeds our bounds. Even the genius must admit to the humility of not being fully aware of everything and therefore give place to perception being ultimately insufficient.
If we still believe that Truth must exist and that we need to know what is True, then we are at the mercies of alternative sources. If not experience, education, intellect, philosophy and we are unwilling to accept Absurdism (see Philosophy Deeper Dive) or Nihilism that nothing has meaning or that all is irrational, Revelation is a viable alternative.
If, and yes “if” is a presumption, Revelation is a strong proponent as the source of Truth. If your presupposition is that “all” is an accident, or that “all” is a progression of from simple to complex culminating in your worldview today, you have some big leaps of belief to arrive at that conclusion. With all the understanding and science and intelligence and macro- and micro- discoveries, you are left with the same perplexity as the God problem—How did the beginning begin?
Much of my life has involved science and I have tried for sixty years to stay current with the present state of discovery. Over those years we have made marvelous strides in finding answers to impossible questions but theory only hypothesizes and leaves proof of truth to a quasi-science faith. Was energy first? Where did energy come from? How did random coalesce into order? How could order come out of chaos?
The answer to those questions remains hypothesis and we are no closer to truth than ‘in the beginning’ which is not surprisingly the way revelation begins: In the Beginning.
Revelation requires an act of belief, in fact, several successive belief acts:
- That here is a reliable source that knows all knowable
- That Source is willing to accurately reveal what needs to be known
- That Revelation of Truth is contextual
- That Revelation must be comprehendible within the context as revealed
- That Revealed must be consistent with all other Truth
- That Revelation has value, responsibility, accountability and is actionable
- That implementation will result in outcome agreeable with context