Why is religion correlated with birthplace and birth time?

[A Vestigial Mote]

Hmmmm, I want to know how you know that God was "completely silent" prior to the Europeans' arrival?! I mean, you even bolded it. God has been communicating with His people since time began. Christians make the mistake to think He sent His manifestation to earth for the first time only 2,000 years ago. Folly it is to think that. Mankind has been stomping around in the spiritual dark for millennia, and God the Merciful has been there to succor, advise, raise up and incarnate in divine form for just as long.

And I would like to know how you know this. Don't sit there and accuse someone of the same thing you are committing - that is, talking straight out of your butt and making wide and sweeping assumptions which you have zero possible way of validating/verifying. Hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

 

[BilliardsBall]

A real god wouldn't need a bible written by humans to speak through. Funny how "God's word" is only heard through humans.

1) Why would God not use written communications?

2) Do you hear God's Word through squirrels, perhaps, or bears?

3) Do you not know that Jesus made us His ambassadors/reconcilers, so you and I can pursue peace?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

And I would like to know how you know this. Don't sit there and accuse someone of the same thing you are committing - that is, talking straight out of your butt and making wide and sweeping assumptions which you have zero possible way of validating/verifying. Hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

That's a darn plain ugly way to say something. Disgusting way to try to engage someone in a conversation. Your approach is not worthy of any reply whatsoever. If anybody else would care to rephrase the question in a decent manner, I'd answer it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That's a darn plain ugly way to say something. Disgusting way to try to engage someone in a conversation. Your approach is not worthy of any reply whatsoever. If anybody else would care to rephrase the question in a decent manner, I'd answer it.

The "ugliness" you detect in my words is entirely your subjective experience of them. "Talking straight out of your butt" is a dysphemism, sure - meant to negatively categorize what you are saying as unworthy of being spoken from a more acceptable orifice.

I stated that you have no way of validating or verifying your wide and sweeping assumptions. Of this I am quite sure. If you actually had ways of producing acceptable validation/verification for the words you wrote then you would literally change the world. You're not doing that, and so it is entirely safe to assume that you don't have it.

And lastly, you were, certainly, being hypocritical. You told your intended target that they had no way of knowing those things, while replying with things you have no way of knowing either.

Oh... and you can take a guess as to how much I care whether or not you think I am "disgusting." Please... what a ridiculous joke. Try not being so fussy. There... see how this works? We can call each other names or negatively connotated adjectives until the end of time, and what does it accomplish? Originally I did little more than make true statements about your reply - I admit I didn't need to add the part about "talking out of your butt" - but in the end, it's just a figure of speech. You, on the other hand, are the one who brought subjective and intentionally derogatory assessments into the conversation. Calling me "disgusting," and implying that the way I think is "ugly." All I think about you is that the way you think is incorrect. Far less derogatory... but, I understand, probably no less inflammatory. Sue me.

 

[firedragon]

A real god wouldn't need a bible written by humans to speak through. Funny how "God's word" is only heard through humans.

You mean God should communicate directly to every human being in the world? Whats the reason for that?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

No, we don't. You are speaking solely for yourself here.

The overwhelming majority of gods humans have honored throughout history are not able to do "anything they want." The one-god is a notable exception to this rule, and in the one-god's case we then have the problem of knowing what that god wants. As mentioned already, that question is a source of considerable debate amongst those who study and honor that god.



True, but it's not even remotely a "universally agreed upon definition." You seem to be ignoring religious and theological diversity to suit your own goals and agendas, which is at best disingenuous. At the very least, you're projecting your ideas about what god(s) are onto theists who are straight up telling you that's not how they understand their god(s).

The God of Classical Theism is pretty much universally agreed upon, at least by 95% of theologians.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You mean God should communicate directly to every human being in the world? Whats the reason for that?

Has it not been gone over time and time again that this would really be the only way to "get the job done?" And by "the job" I mean the successful convincing of each human being of the "right way" to believe/behave/be. If that isn't the end goal, then fine. Let Him do whatever He wants. It'd be interesting to know what the end goal really is in that case. If it is just to let us lead our own lives and come to our own conclusions, then how can He fault us for doing exactly that? There is just so much conflict in the very idea of "God" - no matter which way you slice it. Even if He is entirely "hands off" with the world and doesn't care - then there's the issue of why any of us are enamored with the idea of Him or care enough to pretend He's something He's not. Again... no matter how you posit "God" there are issues to be overcome - explanations that are going to be required before someone is going to accept the idea, etc. Asking questions like the one you do above illuminates nothing. All it is is a shoddy stand-in for the tired old statement from believers along the lines of: "God is above you. How can you even think to question God?" That is an entirely useless statement and question. Entirely useless, and will be unacceptable to anyone with half a wit about them.

 

[Quintessence]

The God of Classical Theism is pretty much universally agreed upon, at least by 95% of theologians.

A cursory glance at the demographics of the world's theistic religions reveal you pulled this number out of nowhere and that it has no factual basis.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Has it not been gone over time and time again that this would really be the only way to "get the job done?" And by "the job" I mean the successful convincing of each human being of the "right way" to believe/behave/be. If that isn't the end goal, then fine. Let Him do whatever He wants. It'd be interesting to know what the end goal really is in that case. If it is just to let us lead our own lives and come to our own conclusions, then how can He fault us for doing exactly that? There is just so much conflict in the very idea of "God" - no matter which way you slice it. Even if He is entirely "hands off" with the world and doesn't care - then there's the issue of why any of us are enamored with the idea of Him or care enough to pretend He's something He's not. Again... no matter how you posit "God" there are issues to be overcome - explanations that are going to be required before someone is going to accept the idea, etc. Asking questions like the one you do above illuminates nothing. All it is is a shoddy stand-in for the tired old statement from believers along the lines of: "God is above you. How can you even think to question God?" That is an entirely useless statement and question. Entirely useless, and will be unacceptable to anyone with half a wit about them.

Well said. I also find it strange whenever Christians say "God can do whatever he wants, who are you to question his plan" because it assumes God exists in the first place. If we start with no assumptions about the existence of God, and work with the Christian concept of God (a personal being who wants a relationship with people), then nothing about God's methods of communication make any sense at all to a reasonable person, so either God is not who the majority of Christians say he is or he doesn't exist, plain and simple.

 

[firedragon]

Has it not been gone over time and time again that this would really be the only way to "get the job done?"

How do you know what's his "job done"?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

How do you know what's his "job done"?

It's in the Bible in numerous places. 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:17, among others. He supposedly wants a relationship with everyone. Again, What's stopping him?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

How do you know what's his "job done"?

Give me a break. I basically conceded that we don't know and can't know with the rest of the post you quoted this little bit of. Keep up man.

Here is the context I am talking about, in case you are interested (not that you actually read it the first time apparently):

If that isn't the end goal, then fine. Let Him do whatever He wants. It'd be interesting to know what the end goal really is in that case. If it is just to let us lead our own lives and come to our own conclusions, then how can He fault us for doing exactly that? There is just so much conflict in the very idea of "God" - no matter which way you slice it.

 

[1213]

I thought the general Christian perspective was that we are all sinners, and everyone needs the gospel.

By what the Bible tells, it is possible to count person righteous by this:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

If it would have been necessary that the message is declared in some other time, I believe it would have happened then.

 

[Link]

99% of people never actively "choose" a religion. Instead, they are brought up / indoctrinated in one by their parents.

They choose to not question their parents and culture, because it's more convenient. We choose convenience over truth.

 

[sojourner]

It's in the Bible in numerous places. 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:17, among others. He supposedly wants a relationship with everyone. Again, What's stopping him?

A relationship takes 2. Therefore, some of us stop God from having a relationship with us.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

A relationship takes 2. Therefore, some of us stop God from having a relationship with us.

How did the Native Americans "stop" God prior to the arrival of Columbus if they had never even heard of Jesus? Why didn't Jesus make himself known to them? Weird that Jesus only communicates through other humans' written and spoken words. It's almost as if he isn't real...

 

[firedragon]

Give me a break. I basically conceded that we don't know and can't know with the rest of the post you quoted this little bit of. Keep up man.

Here is the context I am talking about, in case you are interested (not that you actually read it the first time apparently):

Yep. You don’t know. So you are making up your own premise for an argument and breaking it. It’s a logical fallacy.

 

[firedragon]

It's in the Bible in numerous places. 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9, John 3:17, among others. He supposedly wants a relationship with everyone. Again, What's stopping him?

Binle has many things. It also says only 144000 will be saved.

The argument was that God should communicate directly to everyone to get the job done. This argument of yours is a straw man. No point in that.

 

[Kenny]

I most certainly did not. I'm making the exact same point as in the previous post to which you simply replied with the non-explanatory one-liner saying "yeah...funny".

I'm just trying to get you to expand a bit and actually address the point raised.




Is this your way of saying that god then "tried" to send his message to all independent cultures over the course of history and only a single tribe in judea managed to properly understand it?
If yes, then what does it say about god and his omnipotence, as well as his sincerity, that people managed to understand it in vastly incompatible ways instead?

How does his monotheistic christian message result in the understanding of the norse religion of whalhalla, for example? The principles of that religion are EXTREMELY different from christianity. For starters, it's polytheistic. And plenty of customs and vaues therein, are VASTLY different from what you'll find in the bible.

Do you really wish to claim that this is simply due to "some misunderstanding on their part"?
That doesn't sound very plausible, now does it....

Now, if every culture in the world would rather represent a denomination of christianity with difference more similar to protestantism and catholicism - then you'ld have a point.

But when the difference between religion sare SO vast and major... The argument of "it's the same god and the same massage, just a misunderstanding on the part of those who are the target of the message" doesn't hold up as the differences are far to huge to be explained away with some mere "misunderstanding".

Nore does this address the point made that it's also entirely implausible that not a single other culture managed to understand this "message" in even only remotely the same way.

The entire issue I raised, thus remains completely unaddressed



Which would be a plausible point if all religions of the world were a version or variation of christianity. But that isn't the case at all. Worse even, the christian religions, even abrahamic religion in general, are NOT the oldest religions either. So that argument doesn't hold up either. It would predict that the oldest religion would be the most "correct" then. But the oldest religions aren't even monotheistic and existed long before abrahamic religion....

So this argument doesn't hold up either.

Different floods at different times - and by far not as many have such a tale as you would like to believe.

Curiously (not really), the cultures that have such myths and legends in their religion or history, are all cultures that lived near large bodies of water....

The stories themselves (as to the cause of those floods and the circumstances) also don't match up at all. Except for the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is clearly where the old testament borrowed the tale from. Ironically, that makes the OT story a "deviation" as you called it from the "one correct religion".

Not really, since he, if he is the christian god and your bare declarations here are accurate, is going to punish all those people with eternal torment because he failed at communicating properly.

You are not and I am not the one who judges. You have and I have no idea who has eternal life and who doesn't. I now He is a just God and judges correctly (including judging those who have their own truth). In that He is merciful, you are hardly the person to decide ones eternity.

We know all religions can't be correct because they are all different. They may all have truth in it and through it, but only the is correct.

My viewpoint is that Jewish scripture are the correct one. You don't have to believe it, you are a free will spiritual agent.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

They choose to not question their parents and culture, because it's more convenient. We choose convenience over truth.

And do you practice the religion that was taught to you by your parents and exists as the dominant religion (or set of beliefs) in your own culture? I don't know one way or the other, obviously - which is why I am asking.