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.
No comments:
Post a Comment