Second-hand Revelation: Some guy said God told him to tell you… (Jesus Christ, Earth)

[ayani]

Originally Posted by Inky

That's one reason I like Quakerism--it encourages everyone to communicate with God on a personal level and take other revelations, the Bible and such, with a grain of salt.

well said, Inky. this is something that enamored me to Quakers as well, and to the Shakers.

my own faith is based upon personal reflection and prayer. why has not everyone else got this message? perhaps the revelations that have come to me come as a blessing to my own temperment, to dampen those crags which make me trip often. there *are* many times when i want to share the fruits of the Spirit with others- but it would be missing the point if i were to "preach", though sometimes i am tempted to.

it is more effective to try and keep myself in check, and to let others know peace through how i respond to them in the Spirit. action, attitude, and kindness all tend to speak louder than homilies. no matter how nice one's voice sounds in the shower...

[doppelgänger]

I think second-hand revelations are fine as long as I understand them as doorways for me to experience a first-hand revelation.

[michel]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

One could say that virtually every verse in the Bible, Qu’ran, or other holy text from a revealed religion could be preceded by "Some guy said God told him to tell you..." Millions have taken it for granted that an omnipotent God chose second-hand revelation as a primary method to communicate to us.

One seeming paradox of second-hand revelation is that God supposedly had a message for all of humanity, but God told just a few guys. For unexplained reasons, God apparently stopped communicating that way from then on, putting the burden on them to be messenger boys. Well, perhaps God didn’t stop entirely, as we continue to get claims of revelation periodically, but many revelations claim to be the final one and pronounce dire warnings to any who claim later ones. That might explain the tendency for many to accept ancient revelation over modern revelation.

If God uses a few selected scribes to reveal all-important truths to the rest of us, we are essentially stuck taking their word for it. To me, it seems ironic and contradictory that God allegedly would want a personal relationship but then use bronze-age tribesmen as agents to obtain it.

Why would an omnipotent being choose this method in the first place, with all the risks of translation error, copy error, miscommunication, cross-cultural differences, appearance of favoritism, inherent limits of human language, and so on? It can’t be more trouble to simply speak to us directly, if omnipotence is a reality.

Why are conflicting revelations allowed?

Some claim that the path to eternal salvation lies in second-hand revelation. If so, wouldn't that place your salvation into the hands a fallible human? It seems odd that this arguably most important of truths would be communicated indirectly by fallible humans, especially when God is said to be omnipotent.

Would the originating force behind the entire universe choose a method so fraught with potential for trouble? As if God needed a spokesguy... In the churches of my youth, we simply took it for granted and never gave it a second thought. Is that common?

Which is why I am not "pro - scripture"; I am much more 'hands on" - my faith is about my relationship with God and jesus Christ.

I know this may get people's backs up, but I don't see why I should accept anyone's word just because they said it came from God. That might make me a heretic, and If some believe that, then that's up to them; but that is me.

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by michel

I know this may get people's backs up, but I don't see why I should accept anyone's word just because they said it came from God. That might make me a heretic, and If some believe that, then that's up to them; but that is me.

Well, I'd have to agree with you there. Anyone could say something came from God. That's what the Holy Ghost is there for. One of His primary roles is to testify as to the truth of a prophet's words. Nobody can possibly have a spiritual confirmation of truth without His witness.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

For a God concerned with correct belief He does a ****-poor job of communicating it. The sheer number of Christian denominations testifies to this poor communication.

The vast majority of the difference in denominations are due to disagreements in procedure, ecclesiacstical structure, not differences in doctrine. So denominations split over things like whether people should be baptized when they are infants (to protect them as early as possible) or as adults (so that they can make informed decisions about joining the community). Or whether spiritual authority should be held within a church hierarchy, or in the individual believer. These are big differences in doctrine. If anything, the sheer number of Christian denominations is a testimony to human ego. The fact that people would rather split than try to reconcile, or agree to disagree.

That said, I don't really believe that God is all that concerned with believing the correct doctrine.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

His continuing failure to communicate in the face of centuries of religiously motivated war and strife reflect poorly on Him.

I'm with Booko. Perhaps God is talking but few are listening.

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

I think second-hand revelations are fine as long as I understand them as doorways for me to experience a first-hand revelation.

I agree that second hand revelations need to be tested for their useefulness.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

I agree that second hand revelations need to be tested for their useefulness.

How do you propose to do that?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by lilithu

That said, I don't really believe that God is all that concerned with believing the correct doctrine.

Why not? Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "doctrine," lilithu, it seems to me that God would want very much for us to believe correct doctrine. (I'm not saying I think He's going to condemn those who don't, though I suspect you already know that's not what I think.)