Briefly - About Revelation Versus Reason

 Briefly -

About Revelation -

Versus Reason

By

Francis William Bessler

4/15/2015

Hi, Gary,

       About your question, what do I mean by "Revelation," Revelation means to me claims by various agents throughout history that they have communicated with God and that they should be believed because of that.  For the most part, Revelation - or Revelations - could be considered to be ideas and/or directives  based on a Thus Saith The Lord premise - as found a lot in the Old Testament and New Testament of the BIBLE.

       Earlier in life, Gary, I believed that such claims could be considered to be reliable - but that was when I believed God to be a Person.  If God is a Person, then it stands to reason that God could try to relate to people - or some people - and expect "His" directives to be passed along; but if God is not a Person, but rather, in general, is AN INFINITE PRESENCE that is IN all things, then it is unlikely that God could "talk" to anyone.  Why would God need to talk to anyone if God is really IN everyone?  Tell me that!

        Of course, if God is not a Person, then that would put all of the BIBLE in the unreliable column.  Some may have "talked" with various persons in the Old and New Testaments and in the history of Islam, too, for example, but whoever it was - or is - that has "talked" with any person in history is probably not God.  That would be the reasonable conclusion - if you know what I mean; and that is why, I think, that REASON should be consulted to know the truth because it would be the most reliable.  We may not know the truth via Reason, but we have a much better chance of finding it there than in any hearsay argument of a claimed "prophet of God."  God needs no prophets if indeed God is IN everyone. 

       For what it's worth, though, "reasonably," why would any spirit or ethereal entity claim to be God - like a Jehovah for the Jews and Christians and Allah for the Muslims?  Probably for the sake of being able to capture persons in the world for the purpose of gaining such people in obedience.  Why else? 

       Just ask one question and it should be clear that such communication from some ethereal behind the scenes entity is   likely illegitimate.  That one question: Why didn't this entity behind some alleged directive from the nether world choose to talk to us all?  If that ethereal entity was really legitimate, it would have chosen to communicate its message to all - not to just some one person who is supposed to relay that message to all.

       Why choose one and not all?  Because one is so much better than all because not every one can hear.  To try and talk to all would betray the impostor spirit as one who is not really God.  Thus, it would be so much better for an impostor spirit to not to have to talk to all - and simply choose one who can be seen to represent all.

       In any case, because God, as a necessary Infinite Presence that must be IN all, can't deal with one and not all, it is totally unlikely that it is really God behind some attempted directive to human beings who can't prove that a voice might be illegitimate.  Again, if such an ethereal unseen visitor was - or is - really God, then that one would have to direct all - and not just one who is expected to pass on the message.  It just makes sense, if you take the time to consider it all.

       Hope that helps, Gary!  I will try to address the topic in greater detail sometime in future, though.

Thanks!

Gently,

Francis William Bessler