REGARDING THE CONCEPT THAT AUTHENTIC REVELATION IS ONE MAIN CHARACTERISTIC OF AUTHENTIC RELIGION AND THE STRONGEST PERSONAL EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
Dan from Smithville said : "The problem is that no one can demonstrate and show the difference between direct experience arising from mental illness, lies or actual direct experience of God. Simply claiming it does not reveal the validity of it."
Hi
@Dan From Smithville ;
Actually, I think that the difference CAN be demonstrated and often the nature of the revelation to an individual carries with it, objective evidence that the revelation, or communication (whatever you want to call it) is intelligence or information originating outside the person who receives it.
I practice medicine and have dealt with patients with hallucinations and, over the years have made some observation that might be helpful to understand the differences between revelation and hallucinations (auditory, visual or otherwise)
OFTEN, AUTHENTIC REVELATIONS CONTAIN OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE NOT MERELY HALUCINATIONS
Perhaps I can offer a couple of example revelations of individual guidance by the spirit and we can analyze them reasonably and logical for external and objective evidence that might lead us to conclude that they are not merely hallucinations.
"The first example applies to brothers, one living in Germany and one living in Texas in the United States, who have who formed detailed plans and commitments through regular written letters to attend an american college together.
More than a year of almost weekly letters have allowed them to plan in detail their courses of study and common living arrangement, etc.
At one point, each receives a separate revelation on the same day regarding a drastic change to their plan.
In their separate revelations, each are told NOT to do as they planned, but are each told to take different paths than they planned for so many months.
Both brothers have the same revelations, concerning the same subject, on the same day, at the same time as it were. They each write a letter to one another on the same day describing their individual experience as the reason to change these plans
. The two separate revelations are received by the two brothers on different continents at the same time and their letters cross each other at the same time in the mail between countries.
One brother starts his letter with the sentence:
"Dear Larry, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels he was told to do.
The other brother writes:
"Dear Gary, I hope you are not disappointed, but the Lord has told me we are not supposed to go to school together." And then he writes what he feels HE was told to do.
Each Brother reads an "identical" introductory sentence when they receive the letter.
Both brothers complete re-oriented their lives away from a shared goal they’d spent months planning toward, based on the strength of their separate and distinct revelations.
If only one brother had experienced the “revelation” and had asked my opinion about HIS "revelation", then I might have been tempted to labeling the experience as a possible, perhaps even a probable delusion.
However, once I understand the FULL circumstances, then I have a greater difficulty doing this.
Once I know the FULL circumstances, the diagnosis of delusion is less probable. It's also difficult to label this as two separate delusions, on two separate continents, yet having a delusion at the same time, on the same subject and against a shared goal.
Especially since both individuals seem mentally normal and have never been prone to delusions.
Also, there are objective elements existing that I might consider as evidence that the experience actually happened as the brothers claimed.
For example, there may be diary entries in separate diaries, made on separate continents.
The letters might have date stamps to refer to (one letter to the U.S. and one letter in europe), etc.) It's this sort objective data that I am referring to that revelation may carry within it, as evidence that the phenomenon is not generated within the person - as a delusion, or hallucination is.
My second example involves one of the same two brothers:
The younger of the two brothers is asleep, in bed with his wife, having a dream that is "different" than the normal dream types.
In his dream, he is in a house and his father is standing over a pile of the things and explaining that he is going to die and the son will inherit all these thing when the father dies.
The son explains he does not want the "things" but rather he wants the father to stay.
During the dream, the son realizes the father is going to die; is given some other details and then awakens.
The son awakens and describes the dream and the information he is given to his wife, he writes it in his diary and, being very early in the morning, he goes back to sleep with difficulty as he considers what happened.
He is able to call his dad (who lives hundreds of miles away); discussed his love, respect, etc, but does not tell the father about the dream for reasons outside this discussion.
48 hours later, the father indeed dies suddenly of a heart attack while digging a post hole. He had no known heart disease (though to be fair the father had known hypertension)
Again, the brother's application of revelatory import to a dream itself
could be considered delusional,
except the concept of having been given information regarding a very specific future event which happened makes it more problematic to simply label it as a simple delusion.
Again, there are objective elements that exist such as:
The wife being able to confirm him awakening and telling her about the impending death.
The diary describing the dream is available for objective evidence, etc.
Again, there is objective data to the person having the dream, that is evidence to them that a phenomenon outside themselves is happening.
For example; An accurate; specific and correct prediction of a future even is not something that can be generated inside the person's mind.
I can apply "delusion" to the exact same events in people as individuals who feel God tells them to change plans or who apply revelatory import to their dreams.
However, it is the vast amount of other surround details to the event that make self-induced "delusion" less likely and an external source of communication more likely.
For example;
When a
single unusual event like I describe above happens. I could call it "blind luck" that one predicts a death, or unusual "coincidence" that letters cross.
But, when such things happen over and over and over; and coincidence piles up upon coincident upon coincidence over several years of time,
at some point the constantly repeating pattern of similar correct revelations over many years containing things impossible for an individual to know, becomes indescribably impossible to remain in the realm of coincidence or blind luck.
No one continues to have a lifetime of “blind luck” describing deaths or other specific events beyond their ability to know (such as the future) just as no one wins a lottery ticket over and over.
The brother has normal dreams like everyone else, and every once in a while, has a "dream-vision" that he feels is communication, and, it is consistently correct in how it coordinates with actual events.
Does this make more sense as I describe it in this way?
How do I consistently maintain (if I know the details) that these experiences (and their attending objective characteristics) that happen over a period of many years, are simple delusions (that are
simply within the person's psyche) rather than something that is outside of the persons ability to produce?
Telling the future, or involvement of other people is different than a simple delusion.
The brother KNOWS he is no prophet, he KNOWS he is a regular person who puts his pants on like everyone else, he realizes he has no authority to tell others what they should do based on
these experiences.
The revelations simply give HIM information that applies to HIS life.
I hope that it makes sense that, over a lifetime of frequent and repeated experiences, the revelations themselves carry with them, objective and reasonable and logical evidence that the experience is not simply a delusion or a halucination. (though not all revelations will have this evidence and some may
be delusions...)
However, even when revelations DO carry objective evidence, I agree that the specific individual experience
itself cannot be shared firsthand.
If you need more specific examples, let me know.
Good luck in coming to your own beliefs in this life's journey
Clear
τωτωφιτζω
