Notwithstanding this self-evident truth that all religions are human in origin, every one of them has claimed to be from above. Like puffed-up or ungrateful children, the religions of the world have denied their real, though humble parentage, and have laid claim to a celestial birth. But the fact that each of the great religions, while claiming a supernatural origin for itself, vehemently denies it to all others, renders all such claims exceedingly suspicious. It would be easier for me, for instance, to believe that God has also spoken to you, if he has really spoken to me. But if he has not spoken to me, I am apt to consider the claim that he has spoken to you, as an impertinence. The reason one "inspired" teacher calls another "an imposter" is that he is not sure of his own inspiration. He judges others' pretensions to a divine origin by his own. * The refusal of the different religions to believe in one another is a strong proof that they are all equally unworthy of belief, as far as their supernatural claims are concerned. * Oato used to say that he was surprised one soothsayer could keep his countenance when he saw another manipulating, knowing as he did the imposture he was practicing. Jesus is reported by John the evangelist to have denounced all who preceded his as "thieves and robbers."--Gospel according to John. There is a Hindoo legend that Krishna, the son of God, once showed himself to a group of young ladies who were so charmed with his handsome face and figure that not only did each of the young ladies wish to dance with him, but each insisted that no one else should enjoy the same privilege, whereupon Krishna found himself in an embarrassing position. He was willing enough to dance with the girls, but did not wish to inflame their jealously, so calling upon his resources, he immediately multiplied himself into as many Krishnas as there were maidens, and danced with each and every one of them, taking pains however to leave the impression with each young woman that she alone had danced with the god. So each religious prophet imagines that the Lord has not danced with anybody but himself. The reluctance of the prophets to believe in one another shows how difficult it is for us to ascertain to which of them the revelation has been made. The only way a special revelation could be given would be through an individual--a Moses, a Mohammed, a Jesus, etc. But if we ourselves are not inspired, how are we to tell which teacher is telling the truth? If we are to use our own reason to decide this momentous question, why, then, do we need a revelation? Tell me, I pray you, was it fair in God to have expressed himself privately to some individual, and then to have left it to us to decide whether said individual was or was not inspired?