On the Nature of the Theophany: Contents

In my previous blog, I pondered the idea of what would be a valid theophany.  I first dabbled with the notion of, if God appeared, what would be the purpose of the divine event?  I granted that such manifestations would be done for conversant reasons (a message from God) versus non-conversant reasons (an appearance without message, inspiring notions of God from which content would be invented).  I value the case for the messaged-event over against the encounter, which could be passed off as meeting space aliens.  Von Danigen would reduce the theophany to this in his Chariots of the Gods.  Such a view is simplistic in light of an established dogma that sees God speaking along single lines.

But, what is that single line?  It could well be that the single line of dogma as a human convention.  This is a viable idea.  Religion as human determination of the "Other" could resolve this matter easily.  This would suppose that the theophany is a human originated phenomenon.

This leads us to the issue of content.  What do the theophanies teach us?  And could this core of instruction be motivated by the cultures, the political situations, the internal needs of people as perceived by humanity?  In short, is all this in creation of a Santa Claus vision of the divine, a kindly benefactor who is ready to offer gifts to an appreciative group and bestowing coal on those less than desirable individuals?

What if there is a line of theophany which counters such notions?  A great defeater of this concept is a line of theophanies which reject a catering to human inclinations and desires, repudiate political machinations that would promote an earth-bound utopia of idealistic dreamers, and cancel human "progress" in favor of a divine "norm" that truly regulates happiness.

Three issues of content quickly arise to promote a theophany that could not be imaginative, but holds aspects of ideas in opposition to human thought.

1.  The concept of sin.
2.  The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled living.
3.  The concept of grace.

1.  The concept of sin.

It must be noted that I am not speaking to the human flaw.  All religions deal with this.  But usually under a line of thought that neutralizes the stigma of this flaw.  Karma is a classic dodge of the ubiquity of the wrong within us.  Getting what we deserve is a notable detour of the bluntness of being hostile to the divine idea.  Sin is declared as an act of rebellion in a world that cherishes its rebels.  To deal with sin as sin, we are good with acknowledging the flaw that "we are only human, born  to make mistakes."  We are not good with the idea of consequences.  We can cozy up to the notion of karma, but we rancor against the accusation of sin.  Any theophany that promotes the idea of sin could never be a human construct.  Any epiphany that would present sin in its bluntness must of necessity be a real showing of divine thought.


2.  The concept of a moral law that is seen as impinging on human ideas of happy and fulfilled 
living.

Make no mistake.  Man needs a code of moral living, and to a real extent is a moral creature.  The issue here is the contents of that legal code.  The Ten Commandments could be feasible to an atheist, except he would not adhere to the first three which deal with the relationship to God, and perhaps that law concerning adultery.  But the honoring of parents (to a degree), not killing (to a degree), not stealing (to a degree), not engaging in malicious acts of lying and defamation of character (to a degree), not being overwhelmed by greed (to a degree).  Here we have adequate foundations of moral living.  The constant "to a degree" disclaimers in this last statement hold that we desire to live ethical lives, just not the level of morally which would be acts of godliness.  Yet, such levels of godliness are evidently expressed.  Their appearance, and the theophany that supports them could not be to human advantage, thus not of human origin.


3.  The concept of grace.

In line with all these notices of human depravity and a need of a moral law to regulate such whims is the idea of God loving us in spite of the flaws and working to redeem us.  The Santa Claus divinity would seek human performance, a consistent zeal towards being "nice."  Many religious enclaves seem to border on self-improvement societies.  A notion that presents human as basically un-improvable runs entirely counter to best estimates of the human spirit.   Again, any divine appearance that promotes this idea could not be reduced to human imagining.  Yet, it persists as a distinctive trait in the religious world in contradistinction to similar religious notions.  How came it to be?

The thrust of this article seeks to establish the idea of God based on the idea of "I couldn't have dreamed this up.  You couldn't either.  Whence came it?  Any manifestations that these could be linked to need to be taken seriously.

On the Nature of Theophany: Purpose

In a line of posts, I had an opportunity to develop my idea of foundational ontology of the existence of God.  In short, the argument holds God as a concept that originated from somewhere in the past, such as trolls from a short ugly person who had been noted for acts of malice.  The fact that we have conceptualized trolls must have begun as a historical incident that instigated the idea.  Thus, in the case of God, there had to have been a historical manifestation that sparked His recognition.  That act I determined as the theophany.  To define this epiphany, I would hold to this meaning: a visible manifestation of a deity (Merriam-Webster, 2009 online edition).

In asserting the historical theophany, it is necessary that one, and only one, acceptable theophany would establish the case of God.  In response to this, one poster pointed out that science could not offer critical procedures for such matters, other than an attempt to find natural causes for the theophanic incident, which is self-defeating.  The natural cannot embrace the supernatural.  Granted.  But then the matter would shift to the one valid theophany versus the many bogus theophanies.  How to recognize the actual factual, asserting the true and false theophany.

This is a proper objection, but doesn't mean that such inquiries are impossible.  In this line of blog articles, I would propose methods of determination, centered on the concepts of purpose and contents (plus any other issue that may arise in pondering this topic).

To set a purpose, I would examine the matter whether such a "visible manifestation" was either conversant or non-conversant.  In other words, did the Deity appear to reveal some matter or not?  In a non-conversant setting, such a theophany is more an unintended encounter, a spotting rather than an appearance.  In this case, the appearance in accidental, a seeing what is epiphenomenal.  What is perceived cannot be explained.  This, in effect, implies that God desired not to be seen, but has been seen, leading to a deistic understanding.  The transcendent God, who has been seen, remains transcendent, leaving us to explain these matters in a theological setting of pure imagination.  Most idolatries would develop from this sighting sans meaning or intent. 

But, it is inconceivable that God would appear without purpose.  Accidents do not happen with God.  If He is to appear, He must have reason.  Here we may make two distinctions which border on the next area of concern, content.  Such passings of divine interaction could have essential focus, or non-essential focus.  And here we may begin culling out false theophanies.  God, in dealing with men, must hold transcendent meaning.  If the appearance of deity leads to sexual intercourse with a comely maiden (e.g. the rape of Europa), we have no true manifestation.  If it were to announce a birth of a Savior through trans-sexual methods, such would have better credibility, even in the midst of the incredible.  Remember that such theophanies must be conversant.  Non-conversant appearances only produce marvels without content.  Thus the appearance of Krishna  to Prince Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita has some essential content, the recalling of the prince to his military obligations in wartime rather than pursue a groundless peace which was truly cowardice.

But finding a perceived essential focus may still not conclude in a true theophany.  A political purpose apart from deistic design could invoke the meaning behind the Bhagavad-Gita.  If the focus is transcendent (yet conversant), there is a degree of mystery to the manifestation.  Much along the lines of the appearance of God to Abram in Genesis, Chapter Fifteen.  Here, God desires to craft a covenant with Abram.  Thus conversant.  He is willing to enact this contract in terms understandable to Abram.  Thus essential.  But He enacts the ancient custom of severing animals to walk in their midst alone, thus taking on the obligations in a unilateral fashion.  Essential, but also transcendent.  God, who never fails in His obligations, still reinforces this concept in a theophany demonstrating terms understandable to the patriarch, but still in a transcendent approach.

Thus will act as an introduction to the true theophany.  More will need to be discussed in contemplating the contents of these appearances.

The Decretals of Scientism

In a recent Stand to Reason post (Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges), a notice was given about the need to rethink allowing Christian colleges the opportunity of accreditation.  The rationale for this was the trend of such colleges requiring statements of faith that would compromise academic freedom.  The article stated: Consider those Christian colleges that require their faculty members to sign a "faith statement," consenting to such scientifically preposterous propositions as, for example, that God created Adam and Eve, who were real historical figures and who are the actual ancestors of all humanity. I am stunned at the usage of of the phrase "scientifically preposterous propositions."  Science is highly compartmentalized, but it fails to have a study of historical events (history is a maverick branch of human inquiry).  What could be pure imaginary history is the contrived system of evidence that assembles the geologic time table, but science would never allow this assessment.  Pity, but this is the huge obstacle that only academic freedom could hope to resolve, yet never may.

The article boasts:  Skeptical and unfettered inquiry is the hallmark of American teaching and research. However, such inquiry cannot flourish—in many cases, cannot even survive—inside institutions that erect religious tests for truth. The contradiction is obvious.  Agreed.  But will skeptical and unfettered inquiry allow for the critical discussion of the problems of evolution, the extension of micro evolution (easily demonstrable) to macro evolution (indemonstrable, with only contrived evidence).  The university must be universal in its quest, and science must only be a portion in the quest.  Scientism holds that only science is a sure method of gaining knowledge.  But this cannot maintain itself in a college setting.  Christian colleges will teach the tenets of evolution, but question them for their weaknesses.  This is part of skeptical and unfettered inquiry, a mode not current in public institutions of education.

Scientism is inadequate.  It offers the knowledge, but scoffs at the wisdom, only offering a pledge of solutions to manifold problems.  Yet, in the burst of enthusiasm for science I have witnessed in the passing decades two sorry trends.  First, the enthusiasm leads to a frenzy of advancement that borders on the genre of science fiction.  Super science, resulting in improved forms of humanity.  This leads us to visions no better than the mutant world of X-Men or the improved bionics of Lab Rats.  Fictionalized visions of an idealized human race, leading to progressive change that is guaranteed betterment.  But will we be allowed to use that skeptical and unfettered inquiry to question the directions of progessivism, especially if our conscience holds such progression does not advance mankind, but masks is denigration?

That is the second trend, a sensation that scientism rides a crest of optimism to ever glorious goals.  Such optimism needs scrutiny.  It is ever the foible that moments of advancement are ever sustained.  Liberté. L'égalité. Fraternité. Guillotine. Règne de la Terreur.

Horrors if should such unfettered inquiry becomes unbridled, unprincipled demonstrations of human hubris.

Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-stop-accrediting-christian-colleges.html#sthash.ceLb8azY.dpufCh

Chronicle of Higher Education: Stop Accrediting Christian Colleges - See more at: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2014/08/chronicle-of-higher-education-stop-accrediting-christian-colleges.html#sthash.ceLb8azY.dpuf