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."

[doppelgänger]

Or Mark Twain's short story, "A Fable":

Once upon a time an artist who had painted a small and very beautiful
picture placed it so that he could see it in the mirror. He said, "This
doubles the distance and softens it, and it is twice as lovely as it was
before."

The animals out in the woods heard of this through the housecat, who was
greatly admired by them because he was so learned, and so refined and
civilized, and so polite and high-bred, and could tell them so much which
they didn't know before, and were not certain about afterward. They were
much excited about this new piece of gossip, and they asked questions, so
as to get at a full understanding of it. They asked what a picture was,
and the cat explained.

"It is a flat thing," he said; "wonderfully flat, marvelously flat,
enchantingly flat and elegant. And, oh, so beautiful!"

That excited them almost to a frenzy, and they said they would give the
world to see it. Then the bear asked:

"What is it that makes it so beautiful?"

"It is the looks of it," said the cat.

This filled them with admiration and uncertainty, and they were more
excited than ever. Then the cow asked:

"What is a mirror?"

"It is a hole in the wall," said the cat. "You look in it, and there you
see the picture, and it is so dainty and charming and ethereal and
inspiring in its unimaginable beauty that your head turns round and
round, and you almost swoon with ecstasy."

The [donkey] had not said anything as yet; he now began to throw doubts.
He said there had never been anything as beautiful as this before, and
probably wasn't now. He said that when it took a whole basketful of
sesquipedalian adjectives to whoop up a thing of beauty, it was time for
suspicion.

It was easy to see that these doubts were having an effect upon the
animals, so the cat went off offended. The subject was dropped for a
couple of days, but in the meantime curiosity was taking a fresh start,
aid there was a revival of interest perceptible. Then the animals
assailed the [donkey] for spoiling what could possibly have been a pleasure to
them, on a mere suspicion that the picture was not beautiful, without any
evidence that such was the case. The [donkey] was not, troubled; he was calm,
and said there was one way to find out who was in the right, himself or
the cat: he would go and look in that hole, and come back and tell what
he found there. The animals felt relieved and grateful, and asked him to
go at once--which he did.

But he did not know where he ought to stand; and so, through error, he
stood between the picture and the mirror. The result was that the
picture had no chance, and didn't show up. He returned home and said:

"The cat lied. There was nothing in that hole but an [donkey]. There wasn't
a sign of a flat thing visible. It was a handsome [donkey], and friendly, but
just an [donkey], and nothing more."

The elephant asked:

"Did you see it good and clear? Were you close to it?"

"I saw it good and clear, O Hathi, King of Beasts. I was so close that I
touched noses with it."

"This is very strange," said the elephant; "the cat was always truthful
before--as far as we could make out. Let another witness try. Go,
Baloo, look in the hole, and come and report."

So the bear went. When he came back, he said:

"Both the cat and the [donkey] have lied; there was nothing in the hole but a
bear."

Great was the surprise and puzzlement of the animals. Each was now
anxious to make the test himself and get at the straight truth. The
elephant sent them one at a time.

First, the cow. She found nothing in the hole but a cow.

The tiger found nothing in it but a tiger.

The lion found nothing in it but a lion.

The leopard found nothing in it but a leopard.

The camel found a camel, and nothing more.

Then Hathi was wroth, and said he would have the truth, if he had to go
and fetch it himself. When he returned, he abused his whole subjectry
for liars, and was in an unappeasable fury with the moral and mental
blindness of the cat. He said that anybody but a near-sighted fool could
see that there was nothing in the hole but an elephant.

MORAL, BY THE CAT

You can find in a text whatever you bring, if you will stand between it
and the mirror of your imagination. You may not see your ears, but they
will be there.