If “There is no divine revelation that is outside of the realm of human perception…” then all revelation (and their source) is tied to human minds, and that would mean that it is made up in our thought (like german philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach declared) and also that all revelation would cease if no one would perceive it.
Otherwise, if there is a source external to any human mind, then it can reveal itself independent of human perception, so that maybe only its results may be perceived (and maybe only afterwards). Maybe it would never be perceived but still real and effective in the world. But also it may reveal itself in a way that the perceiving mind knows very well what it is and from where it comes.
Of course, such revelation may be disputed by other people, so that there will be a division between those who believe a certain “message” or “myth” as “divine revelation” and those who don`t.
A believer would then not speak about “disputable” at least not when he/she declares his/her own point of view. To those it would be absolute truth, incomplete however as it might be, but fully valid and authoritative in its telling. A skeptic however would maybe use “disputable”, but preferrably would use “speculative” or “superstitious”. To those people the same content is at best “a nice and useful tale” and at worst “the worst and disastrous invention people ever made”.

Instead they insist on knowledge gained through divine revelation where the creator communicated certain statements about the divine nature and about the nature and purpose creation to men. Since the divine nature is said to be timeless or “eternal” it cannot be changed then, only our perception might change, but that´s then not theology but interpretation of it.

The problem is that we have nothing but our perception. There is no divine revelation that is outside of the realm of human perception, and therefore all ‘revelation’ is questionable – open to debate and question. It’s all interpretation.

That doesn’t meant there’s no absolute truth, but it does force us to humbly accept that none of us has full access to that truth. We are constantly engaged in a journey of trying to better perceive that truth, and our context in terms of our technology and society will naturally have an impact on that. For a good example, check out the comment Camus just left on the Theology and the New Physics post – the new work that is being done in physics is throwing light onto theological reality. We are going to have to nuance and adjust our position. And this is a good thing.

“anything going to be available in due course?”

hopefully.

An eagle-eyed reader will have noticed that the word creativity appears in this book as little as possible. This is because the word carries too much Romantic baggage – the mystery of inspiration, the claims of genius. I have sought to eliminate some of the mystery by showing how intuitive leaps happen, in the reflections people make on the actions of their own hands or in the use of tools. I have sought to draw art and craft together, because all techniques contain expressive implications. This is true of making a pot; it is also true of raising a child.

Page 290 of The Craftsman.

Your studies sound interesting… anything going to be available in due course?

…

Technology is rarely theologically (more specifically, ecclesiastically) neutral. Technology is created with agenda – commercial, industrial, military, scientific, etc.. Theology / ecclesia is impacted by all of these grand human imaginings -and- the technologies which sustain them.

What’s most important, I think, is our intentionality towards technology. If we remain “neutral,” we remain blind to its power to amplify, shape, inform, control, gather, change, persuade, inspire…

My sense though, is that technology, is neutral in its impact on theological conversation.

I’d want to strongly disagree with that. In fact, it’s one of the cornerstones of what we are doing with these Apple conversations that our technological context does have an impact on our theology.

The tools we make – the technologies we use – are an integral part of who we are as people. We are both separate from them, but bound to them too. A proper understanding of the relationship we have with our tools is thus vital to our understanding of the world around us, and thus of God too.

In a recent post on Heidegger’s understanding of technology I noted that “it creates a prism through which it is too easy to see the world as purely a resource for our consumption.” Mark Twain puts it so much more simply: “to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Our technological context does impact our thinking, and therefore must impact our theology. We only need look at Jesus’ parables to see that the metaphors he used embraced technologies of his day. We understand something theological by ‘wineskins’ etc.

John L – sorry, I’m away til Sat and not brought the book with me, so won’t try to rehash his argument without the original quote!