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

[Wandered Off]

Thanks for taking the time to respond, JerryG! It's always fun to resurrect old threads.

Not many people can handle revelation from God. It tends to produce insanity in individuals.

Hmmm... So a God who wishes to communicate with us designed us such that doing so would cause insanity?

It would be wonderful if God cleared up the differences in religions and made himself fully known. However this destroys human freedom. The freedom to believe and the freedom not to believe.

What value is the freedom to believe or not? What would it matter if that were destroyed? I'm not seeing any great loss there. It seems common sense to me being better informed would always lead to better decisions if we act rationally.

Can this "freedom to believe or not believe" possibly be worth the confusion and wasted effort that inevitably accompany it?

I do not like perpetual rebirth. It made me near insane in 1981. I tried to deny it. In the end, it is something at 69 years old that doesn't bother me the way it did at 42.

The good thing about scientific revelation is that everyone can understand it eventually.

Interesting! I think you should post a thread in the Science vs. Religion area of the forum. I'd enjoy seeing your scientific evidence of Biblical Earths and perpetual rebirth. For example, you imply that the universe is here to perpetuate human DNA, which seems anthropocentric. Is there scientific evidence that it's all about us? That could be some good thread material.

[Charity]

I never just take anyone's word on what the scriptures say, I always read them for myself.....I would never listen to a preacher or any "so called prophet" that just expected me to believe them with out praying about it and knowing in my heart that this was was indeed the word of God...........I think that God tells you something in your mind and heart, and sometimes it is confirmed by someone else through a word of knowledge or prophecy....

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Charity

I never just take anyone's word on what the scriptures say, I always read them for myself.....

But when you accept the scriptures as God's word, aren't you already taking someone else's word for what God says? You're just taking the word of dead guys over the word of guys you know.

[stephenw]

Pelagius hit the nail on the head regarding scripture years ago - "You will realize that doctrines are inventions of the human mind, as it tries to penetrate the mystery of God. You will realize that Scripture itself is the work of human minds, recording the example and teaching of Jesus. Thus it is not what you believe that matters; it is how you respond with your heart and your actions. It is not believing in Christ that matters; it is becoming like him."

[Fish-Hunter]

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?

Great thread! How does this perspective fit within Religious Pluralism? I think you can now see the practical implications of Calvinism...with election and predestination. Not everyone is able to receive the Holy Bible as the Word of God, exclusive from all other forms of revelation (rejecting all other religious books claiming to be from God). It is impossible for man to believe through his own free will ability; because his will is not free...rather the will is in enmity with God...running from the light. That's what the Bible teaches. You have nothing to worry about if the Bible is not the Word of God. I think the validity of the Bible being divine revelation rests in the historic person of Jesus Christ, a man claiming to be God incarnate and being the only way to God the Father. He claimed that He would be crucified and would be raised up as evidence to support His crazy and wild claims. Did Jesus rise from the dead? If Jesus is truly raised, I would say the beginning of wisdom is the fear of the Lord who speaks through Biblical revelation alone. I've always shared on this forum that the Bible is a book of divine concealment and divine revealment. Biblical revelation is intentionally concealed to those who do not believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13:
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by stephenw

Pelagius hit the nail on the head regarding scripture years ago - "You will realize that doctrines are inventions of the human mind, as it tries to penetrate the mystery of God. You will realize that Scripture itself is the work of human minds, recording the example and teaching of Jesus. Thus it is not what you believe that matters; it is how you respond with your heart and your actions. It is not believing in Christ that matters; it is becoming like him."

Christian humanism is not based on Biblical truth, nor bibilcal revelation...LOL! Christian humanism is based on human reasoning and human logic. It is a form of secualr humanism with a twist of man made religion. Of course, that is my personal opinion. BTW, Pelagius is considered to be the father of humanism and was declared to be a heretic.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by Fish-Hunter

Christian humanism is not based on Biblical truth, nor bibilcal revelation...LOL! Christian humanism is based on human reasoning and human logic. It is a form of secualr humanism with a twist of man made religion. Of course, that is my personal opinion. BTW, Pelagius is considered to be the father of humanism and was declared to be a heretic.

I like to cosider Eriugena and Pelagius together as they are in Newell.
Eriugena's idea of Christ moving amongst us in 2 shoes, one the Scriptures and the other Creation is a powerful one to my mind.
As regards Pelagius being a heretic - for some reason I get a kick out of that, the leftovers of a teenager that liked punk maybe?
I have to admit that for me Christianity is real because I can perceive it, sometimes dimly and at other times I've felt it very strongly. It's rooted in experience, this experience is real to me. I have great difficulty, and indeed have so far found it impossible to rationalise. The writings of and about the early Celtic church for whatever reason resonate with me, I don't mind being thought of as a humanist, but I don't think that's where I'm at. But God is not real to me because some guy told him to tell me. God's real to me because I have perceived God.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by ayani

i would definately agree with that. the idea of a "prophet" has always bothered me... likely because in so many sources, the prophet will list off peoples who are condemned to hell, who do not listen to God, who are absurd in their beliefs. is there really anyone to whom God can not speak? i am wary of one who is so quick to write others off, likely because something i struggle with personally is to be careful in assuming i can figure out a given situation with objectivity and truth.

i remember talking to a friend who is Muslim, about a mutual friend who was an atheist.

me: "do you want Aybars to go to hell?"
him: "no! i love this guy!"
me: "so you would not send him to hell?"
him: "no, he is a pain in the *** to me, but i would not send him to hell."
me: "so if you love him enough to not send him to hell, how can you assume that God, who is, to you, Al-Ghafar and Al-Rahim, would not love him enough to save him from hell? is God's love limited by a creed?"

As a Christian, have you read the Bible?

[Fish-Hunter]

Originally Posted by stephenw