When we make our understanding and reasoning a precursor to acceptance and relationship are we not superseding his revelation with our reasoning?
I don't believe so, for when Adam was created, it was for the purpose to be like God. Which then would logically assume that reason and understanding would be a minimal part of the experience that we would have with a relationship with God. Then there is the Holy Spirit which in the old testament was a separate part of God that delivered messages and influenced humans. We are then instructed by Jesus that the Holy Spirit was given the task of "helping" humans along the path of knowledge of God. While God may reveal himself to us in various forms and manners, the revealing is then put through the filters of both the Holy Spirit and human reasoning as planned and operated from the origin of Adam.
Since I believe in the theory of positive, negative and neutrality in God, then my understanding and reasoning is definitively a valid interpretation of God.
When an aetheist states there is No God, they are correct, for God in the negative form has been "revealed" to them. A Christian would have an interpretation of the positive aspect and as you note, Buddhism would be the grey area between the two.
The problem is what does it mean "revealed himself"?
Paul was very specific. It means the "Cross of Jesus Christ" as an historical event. We can decide for ourselves whether Paul was right or wrong, but even if this was "one" of the ways and not "the" way, wouldn't it still warrant our approaching God through this revelation?
I agree with your analysis of who Paul was talking about. However your statement on the revealing was:
"This is not a plea to intellectual suicide, but a plea to encounter God as He has made himself revealed to us." If we desire to know if there is a God or not, or if we believe there is a God and desire to know Him better, then shouldn't we approach the search as He has revealed himself and not as we desire to seek for Him? I answered this question instead.
Whoops! we had a communication error.
but even if this was "one" of the ways and not "the" way, wouldn't it still warrant our approaching God through this revelation?Yes. The more ways that we can approach God through revelations, the clearer we can see as Paul would say "a cloudy mirror".
Every religion, every cult, every philosophy has noted that their version of enlightenment was God revealing himself to them.
Other than Judaism and Christianity I am not aware of this. Buddhism does not claim divine revelation, but of human attainment of divine enlightenment. Islam in the Koran claim a divine revelation of will but not of person or being. Hinduism claims no divine revelation, but instead works from the concept of propitiation. These are my impression. What are the ones you have which derives the above comment?
Clarification of thought: Agree on Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism's design of divine enlightenment by humans is how God (as divine enlightenment) can be related to; Hinduism's appeasement of the many gods up to the central diety is another way of God revealing himself through different methods.
Each view is a different perspective (which would be the result of a universal being's revealing to their societal influence and reasoning) which lends credence to the verse that man's wisdom (a single religious belief's viewpoint) would be unable to define God.
Acceptance of ALL thoughts and revealment should be used to help mankind get a better perspective.
I know that it is dangerous to ask this question of you, Paul
But you capitalized ALL. Are all thoughts and all revealments equal or of equal benefit/use? While may be allowed to have any thought I want about you I do not know that any thought would be as equally valid or beneficial in my experiencing who you really are. How does ALL work?
"Come into my house, said the spider to the fly . . ."
I have seriously thought about this one . . . . Originally I would have said No, of course the lunatics and cult leaders' "revealment" are not of equal value. But then, this little voice kept creeping into my thoughts. If they are not ALL equal, then am I not guilty of what Isaiah originally said? Who am I to determine what is less important or more . . . surely, I am not that wise or egotistical.
It is the ACCEPTANCE of the different thoughts and revealments that help us make a clearer image of what the subject matter is. In your example, all the thoughts that you have, good, bad, ugly or indifferent help you determine and experience who I really am. There is a saying that you really don't know someone until you live with them. Reason - you get to experience all the different aspects of that person in many different manners and situations.
When you accept all of the different experiences and revealments you can determine (reason and understanding) who that person really is.
Lastly,
Because he was proclaiming that the values of that culture had been fulfilled and that a new value more relevant to the people at the time.
How does calling their most honored methods of reasoning "foolishness" mean that their values were fulfilled? I got the impression from this passage that Paul was arguing that their approach was futile not fulfilled. How did you read this?
(... I have to run now ... client wants me back in the meeting ...
)
Reading the new thought by N T Wright in the latest book "The Challenge of Jesus" and I am about 1/2 way through right now, the theory as I understand it at this point in his debate is that Jesus and his disciples were confident that the conclusion of the Old Testament and the exile of Israel had come to an end and with Jesus's teaching the Kingdom of God had arrived on earth during his lifetime. Those who still believed that the Kingdom was in the future because of their "methods" were in error. Paul having seeminly come to the same conclusion of the Kingdom being created in his present time was arguing that a "fresh" look at the theology was needed, that Jesus's had indeed prophesized correctly and that the values inherent in Judaism were fulfilled. Except, that those who thought that they "knew" denoting the "wise ones" (clerics, rabbis, Pharisees, etc.) were in error but with reasoning and understanding of Jesus and his teachings that God would be revealed to them in a different and wonderful way which would validate that their traditions and prophecies had all bee fulfilled, but anyone who could not see this "new revealment" would be left behind in the New Kingdom.
[/quote]
