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

[Mike182]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

or perhaps He doesn't really care -- or even exist....

have you read "Small Gods" by terry pratchett? if not, do!

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Snowbear

Or perhaps it's not He who is failing to communicate, but we who are failing to listen.

It is a failure to listen. But not to "God."

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

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

Any "tradition" that inspires people is "useful." "Useful to whom?" is the question, though.

If it inspires me to question ceaselessy and fearlessly explore the uncharted territory of being and decide for myself who I think I am and what that means, then it is useful for me.

If it inspires me to accept a set of answers to those same questions as the end of my journey, it is useful to someone else instead.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by Sunstone

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

You make a good point, Sunstone. I agree with doppelgänger in that they certainly can be useful to someone, so I'm still left with the question of whether they are divine, and why an omnipotent deity would distribute commands second-hand. I can't figure out a need for it, and it certainly seems to have more downside potential than not, as far as I can tell.

Even if a particular second-hand revelation is no longer considered divine, that doesn't have to mean it loses its inspirational value. The only thing it might lose, perhaps, is a measure of authority, but if we can move beyond needing source authority to validate a message, it shouldn't be a deal breaker.

I don't think God is in the business of dictating instruction books, but this doesn't mean that some of the ones making that claim have no value (usefulness).

[Sunstone]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

You make a good point, Sunstone. I agree with doppelgänger in that they certainly can be useful to someone,

The only usefulness I'm concerned with is their usefulness to the individual for his or her own spiritual purposes.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

so I'm still left with the question of whether they are divine, and why an omnipotent deity would distribute commands second-hand.

Divine in the sense of coming from an external, omnipotent being? The evidence strongly suggests "no." Every concept of "God" seems to track the individual culture and values of the would-be "God" observer. And those concepts change as the person changes - such that one's experience of "God" has an uncanny ability to mirror one's own stage of personal growth and moral awareness.

Great art lifts us outside our selves. But in the meantime, it is also a device to trap us within our selves.

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

I can't figure out a need for it, and it certainly seems to have more downside potential than not, as far as I can tell.

But that's not theism/religion. That's humanity. People are in different stages in their moral awareness. If it weren't a formal religion used to justify hating others, it would be something else unless and until the individual morally comes of age (and many never do).

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Every concept of "God" seems to track the individual culture and values of the would-be "God" observer. And those concepts change as the person changes - such that one's experience of "God" has an uncanny ability to mirror one's own stage of personal growth and moral awareness.

Reminds me of an old rabbinic saying I read from Harold Kushner: "God is like a mirror. The mirror never changes, but everybody who looks at it sees a different face."