Liberalism and Revelation

Understanding The Issue Through Understanding Liberalism and Revelation.

I'm trying to truly understand this. In the Qur'an (25:43-44), it seems that Islam understands this problem very well. This is referred to as the philosophy of self-worship. "Have you seen the one who takes as his god his own desire? Then would you be responsible for him?". "Or do you think that most of them hear or reason? They are not except like livestock. Rather, they are [even] more astray in [their] way."
 
From the perspective of understanding God, it seems that the basis of liberalism is the rejection of revelation. Liberalism understands that man is able to direct oneself and may then be understood as the worship of the self. If one wonders how Liberalism is the worship of the self, one may observe that man is a creature that needs direction. Direction may be given or made by us. If one would heed only the direction of the self, as Liberalism would entail, then worship is of the self is a natural trait Liberalism has, precisely because that the self will only heed and respect itself.
 
Regardless of your religion, I would posit that all religions have one thing in common, which is the respect of revelation, source document, or ultimate authority that is not yourself, and your submission to it. In simple terms, God directs your will, or at the very least you heed God's commands and cooperate with His commands. And in this essay, one may argue that one should not think of oneself as illiberal only because one "heeds" God's words, but then thinks and deliberate on them. One should think that one is of the people of revelation if one believes the correct word of God and heed them automatically, submitting to them as if one sees a volcano erupting and automatically running away. One should not question the lethality and reality of a volcano erupting in front of one's own eyes, and should also believe in God's words as real as said eruption.
 
The genuine question is then to ask whether it is possible for belief in revelation to co-exist with the believe of liberalism? I can't seem to find the argument that liberalism doesn't reject revelation. I would venture to guess that believe in revelation can truly only exist purely if one is accompanied by the dissonance of selfish desire or the integrated will of sin. If one would understand sin as something debatable, would try to manipulate how to judge sin, then one have fallen into liberalism by the simple fact that one deliberates on or against the will of God.
 
Consider this an idea to ponder. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Am I Ready? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept of The Unconscious Mind

Am I ready to live alone? Am I ready to be married? Am I ready to have a child? Am I ready to go on to live the next chapter of my life? These are common questions we all have. Its an interesting one.   What is ready? I've heard some understand readiness as the mastery of the situation such that entails knowing how to handle every variable possible. That is not exactly what they said, but that's the heart of it. This to me seems inhumane. Man is fallible and imperfect. If this is the standard, if this is your understanding, the question becomes inane since one may never reach this stage, just to be able to progress in life. I've also heard many versions of this assertion: "You won't understand unless you've gone through it" or "Nothing prepares you for what it actually takes". So, my question is how can you really answer the readiness question with "Yes, I am ready" and to not lie? If we were to assume these assertions, mainly from the ...
Read more

How to Invalidate Revelationist Religion?

How would one go about proving that all revelation is invalid or illogical. There should be only 3 main points that one should contend with and validate or invalidate. These points should be proven or solved in order of hierarchy, meaning if you can disprove the first question there's no need to go on to third. But, if you disprove the third question, your claim of invalidation needs to go up 1 level back to the second question. So, here's my idea of it: 1. Question of God's existence. Of course if God doesn't exist, then revelation makes no sense. The cosmological argument isn't really debatable though in my opinion. Anything infinite just seem like a cop out, so no infinite regression. Also what is physical can't be the only form there is since there is such a thing as metaphysics, which I don't think is the fruit of physics, so no universe as necessary existence. What do you think? 2. Question of whether God is personal or impersonal (Spinozan). If it mak...
Read more

Am I Enough? - Looking Through The Problem with The Concept on Identity or The Self

Am I enough? What should I do to change? Should I change at all? If I change, who or even what am I? All interesting questions. Who am I? What am I? I don't believe we can understand ourselves until we define our borders and limitations. Who we are should start at who we are not. If I were to understand who I'm not, I would first assert that I'm not him or her. That seems simple enough. What is harder though is who I am in myself. Who is my person outside of my body or the man in the mirror? What is my Self? The Self, understood by Carl Jung, is the sum of the conscious, unconscious, and all possible iterations of the personality of man. Every person is in a state of change. Man in his infancy is not the same as his 20 year-old self, though he is still him and not one of his brothers. We can still be different than other people. But, we do change in a few elements within our possible personality make-up. This should create the necessary personality functions to accommodate ...
Read more