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

[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?

[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.

[recluse]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

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?

Hi WO,

I am the last person you'd want to hear from these days... But yes, it is common. In fact, watch the documentary on "The Magdalene Sisters". You will see how it's not only common to not give it a second thought but also to not even question it. Which is exactly what I never did until three years ago. And even then, as you know, I wouldn't say it out loud because I thought I was alone with those thoughts and that I would burn in hell or God would punish me here on earth if I said them.
"The Magdalen Sisters" is a great movie but I found the documentary that comes with it even more interesting as it features some of the real women who lived through that nightmare.

[Katzpur]

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.

I think He speaks through designated spokesmen because He doesn't want each of us interpreting His words on our own. Just look at Christianity, for instance. It started with one man, Jesus Christ who built His Church on a foundation of prophets and apostles. He would direct His Church through them after He ascended into Heaven. Unfortunately, most if not all of them were martyred for their beliefs. And as Paul had predicted would happen were the foundation to crumble, men were once again "as children, cast about by every wind of doctrine." There are now more than 30,000 Christian denominations in the world. The vast, vast majority of them base their beliefs on the Bible alone, and yet they interpret it so differently from each other. With "some guy God tells to tell you things," there is much less chance of the doctrines given to previous men being misinterpreted. Some people would prefer to just decide for themselves how to interpret the Bible. That's their prerogative. Others are more comfortable knowing that God speaks directly to those of His choosing, instructs them as to what He wants the rest of us to know, and then provides the rest of us with the guidance of the Holy Ghost to confirm that what we are told is from God.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Wandered Off

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.

That's pretty much what Emerson said.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by Inky

That's one reason I like Quakerism

Thanks, Inky. Until I looked into Deism, I wasn't that familiar with the Quakers at all, but I find a lot to like about them.

Originally Posted by recluse

I am the last person you'd want to hear from these days...

On the contrary, you currently rank #241 of 697. I haven't seen that documentary, but I'll keep an eye out for it.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

I think He speaks through designated spokesmen because He doesn't want each of us interpreting His words on our own.

That could well be true, Katzpur. The thing is, presumably it wouldn't be any extra trouble for an all-powerful deity to speak directly and unequivocally without needing an agent. Whether we hear from God or a prophet, the issue of interpretation remains. It's just part of the communication process. With prophets, we are at least a level removed from the source for no good reason I can see.

Originally Posted by Katzpur

With "some guy God tells to tell you things," there is much less chance of the doctrines given to previous men being misinterpreted.

How much less so if God spoke directly without an intermediary. The denominations exist despite having Jesus being the big spokesguy. When you add others, there are interpretations of interpretations, and we end up with Babel all over again, as we have seen. Of course, there is so much more chance for fraud when people claim to have revelations falsely. The whole thing seems rather like an unnecessary layer of beaurocracy to me.

Thank you for an LDS perspective! You kids have new prophets showing up all the time, which I have to say looks more consistent than having some seemingly arbitrary cut-off point at which God supposedly stopped communicating that way.

Originally Posted by lilithu

That's pretty much what Emerson said.

Dang it! Somebody always beats me to it. I'll have to read more then. Thanks, lilithu. It's nice to know Ralph's got my back on this.

[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.

Is it just to depend one's eternal future upon adherance to correct doctrine when such doctrine is not clearly laid forth?

If the omnipotent God were truly just -- or truly concerned -- He could easily co-opt the programming on all the world's TV and radio for an hour or so and clarify His desires and prescriptions for a proper life.

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

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

[Wandered Off]

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.

Indeed. Does some cosmic game of "Pass it On" make any sense? To me, the number of denominations and faiths testifies to the lack of communication from God. We have what we need already, but people feel the urge to fill what they see as a vacuum with revelations and religions.

Is it just to depend one's eternal future upon adherance to correct doctrine when such doctrine is not clearly laid forth?

Another good point. The very idea of setting up irrevocable consequences for a decision on which we have only faith is ludicrous - or at the least neither benevolent nor just.

If God truly respected free will, wouldn't he educate us enough to understand the consequences of our options, the nature of the choice, even his very existence? Then it would at least seem he had some measure of respect for our freedom of choice, even if it's still a cruel and bizarre choice to impose on us in the first place. This is why I find the notion of free will with potentially disastrous, irrevocable, eternal consequences morally flawed.

A more rational view is that our free will is best achieved by not hanging crazy conditions or consequences upon it. Any interference in the form of coersion or consequences would reduce freedom of will.

If the omnipotent God were truly just -- or truly concerned -- He could easily co-opt the programming on all the world's TV and radio for an hour or so and clarify His desires and prescriptions for a proper life.

Or even just talk directly to our brains. Omnipotence requires no human media.

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

And on us for using that as a pretext.

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

I see God as simply beyond obsessing over our single species. To think otherwise could seem somewhat arrogant.