Heaven does no speaking - Confucius

Is the best way to know the creator through what is created or through what is revealed?

Or both?

>1 richardbsmith:
What do you mean by "know"?

Proverbs 2
If you accept my words and treasure up my commandments....
then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.

John 17.3
And this eternal life, that they may know you, the only true god and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Ephesians 1.17
I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him

Assuming you've followed the instructions in Proverbs 2, what does your understanding of the fear of the LORD entail? And if you've found the knowledge of God what specifically do you know about God?

The fear of the LORD could be the idea of obedience or death? If you are scared enough of the punishment you will have the wisdom to avoid worshiping idols, for instance.

Revelation has told me God is jealous.

My question though is whether knowledge of God is best obtained from revelation or from nature?

We might discuss possible differences between the God of revelation and the God of nature.

We might start with the idea that Earth is special to God. Depicted as the center of the universe.

Of course, my question also intends as much as possible to avoid a Christian specific perspective. We may be unable to avoid such as we simply might not have the requisite knowledge for adequate consideration other religions in our discussion.

Of what is God jealous? And why reveal this emotion to you in particular? I'm not sure how to answer your question about revelation versus nature except to say that any revelation specific to you is probably objectively indisputable. Nature, maybe, involves some intersubjectivity. When I lived in California I saw a burning bush off the side of I-5. I figured someone flicked a cigarette out their window. Maybe I missed something.

>6 richardbsmith:

Revelation seems to tell me more about love than it does about fear, obedience or jealousy.

Mike,

God has not revealed his jealousy to me. He revealed his jealousy to the biblical writers. Ex 34.14.

John,
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only son so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but have eternal life."

God loves those who love him. The rest perish.

My question though is not so much about what one might understand from revelation. My question is whether revelation is a better teacher as to what God is than the evidence in his creation.

Is God mysterious as might be taught from revelation or is God knowable as might be taught by the creation.

Revelation - God imposed an initial order on chaos. And I think that we are to accept that initial order has stood.
Nature - from an initial low entropy, the universe moves continuously to high entropy.

>6 richardbsmith: My question though is whether knowledge of God is best obtained from revelation or from nature?

Is this not the question that has fueled nearly every philosophical revolution, as we vacillated back and forth between whichever answer we prefer at the time? A priori knowledge vs. a posteriori knowledge?

SBL

I am sure that is correct.

But my question is not about what is known or learned or revealed. It is about what that knowledge tells us of the creator. And so I think this is all a posteriori as revelation is experienced as much as any other observation.

One possible answer would be that we cannot know anything of the creator by looking at creation. The creator and the creation are distinct and separate.

Another possible answer would be that we cannot know anything of the creator by what is thought to be revelation, only by studying the creation can the creator be known. The creation itself is our source of knowledge of the creator.

And, for me, that there may not be a creator is included in these possibilities.

One test might be to compare what has been revealed about God's character with what may be suggested by the creation.

And perhaps this is a stupid idea. I have those with some frequency.

>11 richardbsmith: And, for me, that there may not be a creator is included in these possibilities.

In other words, why does creation require a creator? Of course, calling it "creation" (as opposed to, say, "existence") suggests you want that assumption to be made, at least for the purposes of this discussion. But if you don't make that assumption--if you think, for example, that nothing comes from nothing--the question is pointless.

If you do make the assumption, then you aren't really trying to decide which says more about God, revelation or nature -- you are looking for justifications for the starting position that God exists. And speculation into the question of nature versus revelation is really more a question about what you want to find in God.

>9 richardbsmith:

Of course you'll find biblical qotes which say everything and nothing if taken literally and out of context of, well, nature, creation, tradition, life, the universe and everything. That's why I answered your original question with "both", and indeed I would add more than both. Everything, perhaps.

SBL,

No. Not my intention to establish assumptions by word selection bias.

We can call it existence. Or whatever word you, or others, like. Or we can allow creation does not require a creator. I don't like existence or reality.

We could use universe. That is what I mean in this thread when I wrote the word creation. The universe.

What does the universe reveal about its creator, to include the possibility that there is no creator?

John,
Let's use your selections of scripture. Nothing special about my selections.

Another comparison.

Revelation - Earth is a preferred location in the universe
Universe - there is no preferred location in the universe

>9 richardbsmith:
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by revelation. If you haven't experienced it directly how can you speak about knowingly? You're taking it on faith that the reports of others (prophets? ) are of divine origin.

Yes. I am under the assumption that the scriptures of various religions make claims of divine revelation, and authoritative divine revelation.

I would be very distrustful of any personal revelation that I might receive, certainly distrustful of its divine origin.

The sense of revelation I am speaking about is that revelation which forms a religious belief as with revealed religions. And this would include the revelations recorded in the bible. (Not specifically the Book of Revelations, though not excluding that book.)

I am curious why you would so quickly dismiss any personal revelation while accepting the word of someone who died 2000 years before you born. Leaving that aside, maybe you're asking about knowledge from faith rather than revelation though I suppose one leads to the other Growing up RC I seem to remember faith being described as a given to individuals by the Grace of God and so it does not require human reasoning as a basis for belief. I'm a little rusty on the doctrine however.

>15 richardbsmith:

I would say its not about taking my selection of scriptural texts or yours. Rather its about taking the broad sense of the scripture, giving priority of interpretation (for Christians) to the New Testament, using the tools of exegesis, reading it in the light of both Tradition and one's own experience of God. Again all I can say is that when I do so, it is love that shines through, not jealousy, obedience or fear.

I had a revelation nearly four decades ago that ALL organized and man-created religions are not to be taken seriously - at ALL.

In the intervening years I have experienced nothing that contradicted that revelation.

Thus I must and do assume it was a true revelation.

Case closed.

>6 richardbsmith: Of course, my question also intends as much as possible to avoid a Christian specific perspective.

This particular qualification of the opening question puzzles me, particularly because by framing the topic with quotations from both the OT and the NT you have placed the dichotomy firmly in a Christian context.

I suggest, also, that some greater clarity could result from working out for yourself how to phrase your question(s) using, on the one hand, "creator" and, on the other perhaps, "origin".

Thanks for the suggestion.