Talk:General revelation

[Untitled]

I wanted to update this and see what everyone thinks. thank you for your imput. Dan

In order to understand what General Revelation is we must start at the beginning. Revelation by definition is something that was once hidden and is now made open, or revealed. General Revelation therefore is the basic, fundamental exposing or opening of something. This topic is related mostly to God and therefore when a Christian speaks of General Revelation he is speaking of what God has revealed about himself in nature, history, and the conscience of man. It is believed that this revelation is given to all people at all times in all places. According to Bruce A. Demerest, “General Revelation has been understood as a universal witness to God’s existence and character.” Demerest goes on to say, “that man knows both that there is a God and in a simple way what He is like.” It is held that this revelation comes in three areas. Nature would be the biggest area in which God is believed to have revealed Himself to man. Christians would quote Romans 1:19-21 to say that man can see God's eternal power and his divine nature in nature. Christians would also say that order of the would, the vastness of the universe, and the complexity of man show to all, that there is a great, supreme, intelligent personality who created, runs, and maintains all things. The second area in which it is held that man can see God is in history. Christians look back over time and say that man can see that God enters into time and space to accomplish is will. Support of this would be seen through the rise and fall of nations and world powers. Further support would be given by looking at the way the nation of Israel has been preserved. Lastly, it is held that man sees God through his conscience. The fact that people have a sense of right and wrong is given as proof that there must be a divine law giver. Those who hold this view go back to every great civilization and point out that they all had the same basic laws, the last six of the Ten Commandments. These three areas are what make up what is called General Revelation. This revelation is the foundation for what Christians call Special Revelation which is believe to lead to salvation. Sources: Demarest, Bruce. General Revelation:Historical views and Contemporary Issues. Zondervan; Grand Rapids. Thiessen, Henry. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Eerdmans; Grand Rapids,1979.(unsigned comment 14:16, 23 January 2006 by Dwalton512)

Hi Dan, if you can summarize some of this material, and add it with references, that would be great. You might want to spend some time looking around the site studying how this is done. Just remember that the point of Wikipedia in this article is not to prove general revelation, but to describe in a neutral manner what it is understood to mean.--Gandalf2000 16:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you have some good thoughts here. Do you have a source for the three categories of general revelation that you describe? I think that they would be a very good addition to the article, although a source should be given to back them up. You could also include the fact that the doctrine of general revelation is based in part on Romans 1:20 which many Christians understand to mean that general revelation bears witness to God in such a way that all humans are accountable before him. In the context of an encyclopedia entry, you need to be careful that you are providing helpful information about the doctrine of general revelation and not engaging in Christian apologetics. Also, you should consider starting a user page (It can be as simple as you like.) so that you can sign your discussion comments and other users can leave responses on your personal talk page.--Jjhake 03:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

It would be useful to be clear which sects have these beliefs. It should also be noted that the existance and gender of God is disputed. -- Beland 03:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

General Revelation Wiki Not "General" Enough

Shouldn't someone expand on this? I hear "General Revelation" and I think a section is needed within the wiki containing information on Revelation outside of theistic thought, outside of divinity. A LOGICAL revelation should be included within the GENERAL idea of the page... Seeing as how no one cultural system entails the entire scope of this subject. I tried to expand by including what I believe to be a valid logical argument for the revelation of the full scope of existence. But I can not exactly be sure that administrators will see it as my own study. IT is a common knowledge argument and is as follows.

There is currently a debate as to the origins of existence. On one side you have the infinity supporters and the other the finite supporters. However, what I am about to state, is in the middle, sort of. At the base of these observations, is meaning. The question most people ask themselves "how did everything begin to exist?". The hangup is confusion. Confusion in the face of not knowing what gives meaning.

Most words are relative concepts. One could argue that more specific terms are not relative, however, one would only be looking at the specific term and not the terminology it falls under. For instance, there is no opposite to ones own name. However, if one has no name, we have found the opposite. A specific term is always used in the place of relativity to make the concept unique & thus they remain relative.

This relativity is quite important when one seeks to understand the origin of existence. The Kalam Cosmological Argument states that the universe could not have began with nothing, however, I (and many others) disagree. IT is logical to assume that in order for the universe to exist it must also have not existed. In fact, when one observes the universe, one sees it is expanding. & in order for this expansion to take place, a perfectly empty nothing must have been the cause. In order for such a massive expansion to take place, you must begin with this perfect vacuum in order to get the reaction we now observe (in accordance with modern physics).

The question then, is what could possibly expand inside a perfect nothing? How is it possible to insert something within this nothing? To this, I can provide no real conclusive proof, as is the case throughout history. However, I can provide the obvious. Whatever started the chain reaction, must have FIT INSIDE the NOTHING. I ask, what can you think of that contains no space? What ideas do you have that are relative to the perfect nothing I speak of? It is these approximate nothings that must have set motion to the universe. In an instant, the perfect nothing existed within time, and the time expanded infinitely.

Time does expand infinitely, that is its nature. IT is a preposterous argument to say that TIME can stop. For if time stops, so too does all the universe. However, Time and Nothing is not our universe. There is matter, and how did this matter begin? Well, what else contains no space? What of perception? WE assume our ideas take place in our brains, but more recently it is becoming more and more apparent that our brains keep our bodies functioning and are simply tools which are used by our souls. The perception we have could possibly be a part of this nothing and time. Which makes sense, because nothing has infinite potential. So what is the point?

Well, it is my belief that thought also filled the universe. Much like our souls perceive our bodies and the world around us, an infinite incorporeal perception expands infinitely. This intelligence built the basic laws of the universe in order to give itself something other than itself. It's logical. However, modern thought disregards the relative concept of words in favor of egotism. Which is what is leading us as a whole, away from this logical understanding.

I do not state that there is only one of these infinite perceptions, however, the redundancy of such an argument is invalid. No matter how many times you repeat the process on it's self, the answer is still the same. At the root of all things is universal harmony & within that harmony intelligence forms, & that intelligence builds universes.

Webster's Link has been hacked

Not sure how to change it - new to Wikipedia - but the footnote link to Webster's has been hacked to lead elsewhere. How can this be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cilionelle (talk • contribs) 06:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked it and it is correct now. ForgetfulDoryFish (talk) 02:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

General revelation-- not so complicated

General revelation is explained in Psalm 19:1-6(hcsb). Simply stated any person should be able to see the trees, feel the wind and count the stars and realize that man could not have made it happen. Therefore, man must be able to rationalize that there is a greater being, a Creator that created all. The result of which, should be man's curiousity to seek the existenance of the Creator.

In God's eye, this general revelation leaves man no excuse to say "I never knew of you". Not that revelation stops here, but this is all general revelation would cover. In the begining of time when there was no written word and today where there is no written word allowed or it just doesn't exist in their country, this would still apply. Thus, allowing for salvation by General Revelation of the Creator and belief in Him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.152.205.123 (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)