I listened to an interview with a Raelian the other day. Raelians base their system of beliefs on the stories told by one man. This guy, Rael, claims to have had a revelation in 1973 (and again in 1975) - he claims that the aliens who made us contacted him (and only him) to spread the word about them; that there is no God, that we were created by aliens and that we should live in peace and harmony.Most of what they believe is, of course, nonsense. It denies modern science in a way that even the most fundamentalist of creationists does not - for example, they believe that the seven races of men were independently created by the seven races of aliens who visited us (these aliens are called 'Elohim' by the way).
The main issue I have with this belief system is it all comes from an alleged revelation made to only one man. Nobody else had the revelation, or indeed any proof of the things that were 'revealed'. Everyone else who believes has been won over by the persuasiveness of that one man.
The same, of course, applies to the Mormons - their beliefs are all based on an alleged revelation to only one man, Joseph Smith. He allegedly found the ancient book of Mormon and he alone was able to translate it (with some special glasses he was given) into English. Once again, nobody else had the revelation, believers were taken in by his persausiveness, and by the persuasiveness of those who followed.
It is easy to pick out other cults or religions that were established through the alleged revelation to one man (I can't think of any that were revealed to a woman). Indeed, I can't think of a religion, who's origins aren't lost in pre-history, which doesn't owe its origins to the teachings of a single man. Muslims believe the revelation was made to Mohammed, Buddhists believe that the Buddha discovered the path to enlightenment, and so on.
Can you trust a belief system or way of life which is based on revelations only made to one person?
I would say no. Why wasn't the revelation to more than one? Why no proof? If any way of life is based on the sayings of one man only, as a result of revelations he has allegedly had, I would exercise extreme caution - even if the way of life seems to work and there are no apprently negative aspects of it.
But is Christianity any different? Our faith is based largely on the teachings of one man too. This man was held to be the Son of God by his followers (although, apparently, he called himself the 'Son of Man'), but the followers didn't seem to receive any direct revelation at first, did they?
Some skeptics claim that Christianity was actually founded by Paul - who had a revelation experience on the Damascus road - and that it was his persuasiveness that got the whole thing started. Could that be the case?
Or is Christianity the 'religion' that is different? Was the revelation actually to the initial twelve disciples, and then to Paul, and also to Peter and John the divine later on, and so on? Have we assurance that it is not simply through one man that we are persuaded?
And does Christian revelation happen to people today?
4 comments:
Hi Ricky. Do you see the problem you've created for yourself in this post? You claim to be a Christian, yet you discredit Christianity because it is just like other religions and cults because its teachings come from one man's revelations. You've done a nice job of painting yourself into a corner. Now, if God chooses to give revelation to only one man, what is that to you? After all, it is his prerogative to do anything he chooses to do. Fortunately for you, however, this is not what he has done. Quite frankly I don't know where you got the idea. Christ not only received revelation from heaven, but was himself direct revelation from heaven (even he made that claim). Furthermore, revelation has been given long before Christ appeared. The law, the prophets and the psalms attest to this. Believers of old had faith in and looked forward to the coming of Messiah, as promised in the scriptures. To say that Christ suddenly appeared one Tuesday afternoon and claimed to be the only man to receive revelation from heaven is incorrect. Luke records Christ's words for us, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." You've mentioned persuasiveness; do you need more than this?
You are right when you say that some skeptics claim that Christianity was founded by Paul. What else would you expect from skeptics? Christianity was founded by God, from the beginning. It was promised in the Garden. The promise was perpetuated through the patriarchs and Israel; it was made complete in Messiah. And so our "Christianity" is not some new cult or religion given to those of us who are merely persuaded by one man, whether Jesus or Paul or anyone else. No, rather we are persuaded by one Spirit alone who can take all of this revelation and help us to see how utterly reasonable it is. It is in this sense that your last question is answered ("And does Christian revelation happen to people today?").
Jojo,
Do you ever think before you comment?
The whole point of this posting is that Christianity is different from most religions in that it is not based on revelations supposedly made to one man. This is one of the many things that sets Christianity apart from false religions - it does not rely on you believeing the (unprovable) claims of only one person. But rather it relies on the testimony of a large body of people who have recieved revelation across the ages and the ongoing revelation of the Spirit himself.
Just because I phrase things from a certain viewpoint does not mean that I necessarily hold to that view. Using the scientific method (which you do not believe that I use, but that's another discussion) you propose a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. Here my hypothesis could be phrased as 'Christianity relies on the testimony of only one man, which cannot be tested and therefore is not trustworthy' and then that hypothesis is undermined by the body of evidence that suggests that the revelation has actually been given to many over thousands of years.
This blog is about me thinking through various issues. I hope this encourages my readers to think too. It is only by considering (challenging? doubting?) your beliefs that you can actually determine if those beliefs are true, reasonable, trustworthy or necessary.
And now the challenge goes out to followers of other faiths - is your faith dependent on the teachings of only one man? If so, can you trust it?
R.
Ricky,
Maybe you should defend your point rather than beat around the bush of doubting and musing. How many doubters do you expect will see through your musings and come to the right conclusion otherwise? My goodness, man, you've done somewhat here in your response to me. Please reread your second paragragh carefully and then explain it more carefully to me. The way it is written seems strange: 1)I did not propose a hypothesis; 2)neither did you explicitly state a hypothesis in the post; 3)you don't directly give a "body of evidence" to support the supposed hypothesis you claim to have made in the post:
"Just because I phrase things from a certain viewpoint does not mean that I necessarily hold to that view. Using the scientific method (which you do not believe that I use, but that's another discussion) you propose a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it. Here my hypothesis could be phrased as 'Christianity relies on the testimony of only one man, which cannot be tested and therefore is not trustworthy' and then that hypothesis is undermined by the body of evidence that suggests that the revelation has actually been given to many over thousands of years."
You've asked if I ever think before I comment. I often wonder if you do before you post.
Jojo,
Sorry for the confusion in my wording there. I did not mean to imply that you (i.e. Jojo) had proposed a hypothesis. My meaning was meant to be:
If one is using the scientific method, one proposes a hypothesis and then attempt to disprove it.
I used the word 'you' in the general sense rather than meaning specifically you (i.e. Jojo).
I hope this resolves your confusion over that paragraph.
However, I object to you telling me how I should write my blog. How I choose to present myself is up to me. I don't claim to have all the answers and I generally post about the issues that I don't have answers to rather than those where I do have the answers. If you knew me, you might have the right to suggest how I go about writing my blog, but as you don't, you don't.
But while we're telling each other what to do, in my opinion, you should be a real person on your blog, rather than hide behind a pseudonym. An opinion voiced by an unknown person holds no weight at all. An opinion voiced by a real person can be judged.
On this specific issue, I don't claim to have 'the right answer' for doubters. Indeed, I don't usually claim to be right on many issues. I do claim to have thought through the issues and have come to a reasonable answer or at least a justifiable belief. That is my agenda here.
R.
Post a Comment