• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why would gods use cultural diffusion?

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
How can anything be better than perfection?
Perfection is, by the definition, the better that can be.
From my point of view, becoming perfect is better. I see value in flaws; they are opportunities.

Maybe an example?

From my persepctive, the contestants in Special Olympics are better than the regular Olympics because the contestants in Special Olympics have more challenges.

As a parent, I am more impressed by my child's accomplishments where they struggled as opposed to things that are easy for them naturally.

So, maybe for you, being perfect is the pinnacle; but, for me, improvement is the pinnacle. It's subjective.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
From my point of view, becoming perfect is better. I see value in flaws; they are opportunities.

Maybe an example?

From my persepctive, the contestants in Special Olympics are better than the regular Olympics because the contestants in Special Olympics have more challenges.

As a parent, I am more impressed by my child's accomplishments where they struggled as opposed to things that are easy for them naturally.

So, maybe for you, being perfect is the pinnacle; but, for me, improvement is the pinnacle. It's subjective.

If improvement in itself is the pinnacle, then the end result is not perfection.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Things that depend on frames of reference are not covariant. Ergo, not absolute, really. And surely not perfect.

Ciao

- viole

To call something perfect always require a frame of reference.
A perfect chair, for instance, is only perfect as far as being a chair goes. If you compare it to tables though...

So, what do you mean by 'best evil'?
Are you using the word 'best' in clear opposition to 'evil' or are you using the word 'best' as in 'the biggest possible'?
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Why is it more impressive if it leads people to doubt, for instance? Isn’t that the opposite of giving important information?
Because "doubt >>> confidence" usually requires effort or some external input. When doubt becomes confidence, the effort and external inputs that contributed are wrapped up in the confidence. This makes the process more impressive. The transition from on to the other includes more.

Let's say I'm a student, and it takes me 2 tries to pass intro to Calculus. The first time I failed, then the next year I hired a tutor. When I succeeded the following year, the success reflects positivley on me, not just for the knowledge but also for the extra effort. It also reflects positively on the tutor I hired. It also reflects positivley on the instituon that trained the tutor, etc... Compare that to just easily breezing through the class on the first try. I think it's more impressive when it took two tries.
For instance, the inefficiency of cultural diffusion as a method of information transmission was one of the very first things that led me away from Christianity.
And so, if the story turns out to be true, you're at the pearly gates, just tell who ever is in charge that you can't be culpable for any spiritual wrong-doing because ... the information was botched in transit. Boom. You're off the hook. See, it's a good thing. :p:D
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
If improvement in itself is the pinnacle, then the end result is not perfection.
You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Fine, the process has value to me even if it's not perfect. Ask any parent how they feel when getting a messy crayon hand-made birthday card whether they would have preferred a perfect one instead.

Edit to add: Please reread my post. I said "becoming perfect" is better. So no cake for either of us.
 
Last edited:

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Fine, the process has value to me even if it's not perfect. Ask any parent how they feel when getting a messy crayon hand-made birthday card whether they would have preferred a perfect one instead.

But that's what I am saying: If you prefer the messy crayon hand-made birthday card over any other, it means that is the perfect one. Or at least, the one closest to being perfect. You can't call a card that you wouldn't have chosen as the perfect one.
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
But that's what I am saying: If you prefer the messy crayon hand-made birthday card over any other, it means that is the perfect one. Or at least, the one closest to being perfect. You can't call a card that you wouldn't have chosen as the perfect one.
Sorry, but no. For me, I love how imperfect it is. Not only that, comparing the birthday cards year to year becomes fun. If they're always perfect ( iow without improvement ) it's a completely different experience. Try to imagine it. Your child's birthday cards are always perfect, vs, your child's birthday cards are always improving. Which is better? As I said, it's subjective.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Sorry, but no. For me, I love how imperfect it is. Not only that, comparing the birthday cards year to year becomes fun. If they're always perfect ( iow without improvement ) it's a completely different experience. Try to imagine it. Your child's birthday cards are always perfect, vs, your child's birthday cards are always improving. Which is better? As I said, it's subjective.

You still didn't get it.
You are saying that a card drawn beautifully is perfect, but that is not true because you don't really care if that card is drawn beautifully. If this factor makes no difference whatsoever when you get choose which card you want, then how badly it was drawn is simply irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything towards perfection. A thing is only perfect if you would always choose it over anything else, given the chosen frame of reference.
 

Shakeel

Well-Known Member
This feels like a straightforward question: why wouldn’t a god, if one exists, use a better method than this to spread information?
On what basis would something else be better? You're assuming a goal of your own as the goal of God and the human race.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Uh... that's not what I said. See below:



The rest of your reply doesn't make sense, because of the misquote. Sorry.

Then what do you mean by 'Your child's birthday cards are always perfect'? What do you mean by 'perfect' on this sentence? How are you measuring this?
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
To call something perfect always require a frame of reference.
A perfect chair, for instance, is only perfect as far as being a chair goes. If you compare it to tables though...

So, what do you mean by 'best evil'?
Are you using the word 'best' in clear opposition to 'evil' or are you using the word 'best' as in 'the biggest possible'?
As I said, things that require a reference frame are relative.
Are you trying to make a case for relative perfection?

Ciao

- viole
 

dybmh

ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
Then what do you mean by 'Your child's birthday cards are always perfect'? What do you mean by 'perfect' on this sentence? How are you measuring this?
Umm... I didn't say "My child's birthday cards are always perfect".
 

Bird123

Well-Known Member
Many “revealed religions” depend on prophets and holy texts to get their messages out to people: in order to figure out what God wants, you either have to read this holy text or have a class of priests that read the text tell you what the text says.

But this is a form of cultural diffusion: whether or not the text is available to you before the modern world (with printing presses and internet) depends on whether you’re born in the region where the book is in print, whether your culture supports the priest class that can tell you what the text says (such as if you’re illiterate), things like this. Even today, we see religions based on particular texts to be somewhat geographically locked as tends to happen with things (like fashion) that are spread through cultural diffusion.

Why would gods choose such an obviously inefficient way to spread their message, especially if (in some worldviews) that message has infinite consequences?

For instance, for a being with godlike power, it would be trivially easy to just implant whatever knowledge is supposed to be gleaned by the holy text directly into every newborn: then it won’t become region locked, people wouldn’t fight over whose holy text is holiest, people wouldn’t be born in regions that don’t have easy cultural access to the holy text or priest class that reads it, etc. Why not this instead?


You are right!! It doesn't add up these are the actions of an Intelligent Being as God. Religion is a creation of mankind. They speak to who they think God is or who they want God to be. As such, religions reflect mankind more than anything.

Do you see Powerful, Mighty, Ruling, Controlling, Wrathful, Angry, Judging, Condemning, Punishing, Manipulating, Coercing, Intimidating, Threatening, Pay Back, Hate, Having Favorites and such in holy books? Question! Would a Being with the Great Intelligence to create us and this universe value all those petty things as mankind does? Can one really be at a Higher Level holding onto all the garbage that brings hurt to so many?

On the other hand, religion is a catalyst that brings out so many of mankind's problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. One lesson many need to learn is about Blindly accepting.

There have been cults in the past that ended with mass suicide. I wonder how many in the religions of today would blindly accept enough to commit suicide? Clearly, we have all seen some of this in the news. I wonder if those preachers told them God is coming to get us. Let's go! Would the blindly accepting sheep just walk over a cliff?

A God with any intelligence at all would not want His children Blindly accepting and following. We are all meant to THINK. Further, Choosing is a part of God's learning system. Choosing is far too important to allow others to make our choices for us.

You have a very good discussion here. You are right. Thinking people will bring better results.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

robocop (actually)

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Many “revealed religions” depend on prophets and holy texts to get their messages out to people: in order to figure out what God wants, you either have to read this holy text or have a class of priests that read the text tell you what the text says.

But this is a form of cultural diffusion: whether or not the text is available to you before the modern world (with printing presses and internet) depends on whether you’re born in the region where the book is in print, whether your culture supports the priest class that can tell you what the text says (such as if you’re illiterate), things like this. Even today, we see religions based on particular texts to be somewhat geographically locked as tends to happen with things (like fashion) that are spread through cultural diffusion.

Why would gods choose such an obviously inefficient way to spread their message, especially if (in some worldviews) that message has infinite consequences?

For instance, for a being with godlike power, it would be trivially easy to just implant whatever knowledge is supposed to be gleaned by the holy text directly into every newborn: then it won’t become region locked, people wouldn’t fight over whose holy text is holiest, people wouldn’t be born in regions that don’t have easy cultural access to the holy text or priest class that reads it, etc. Why not this instead?
The people of whatever religion are a link between their G/g-d(s) and everybody else.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Most people seem to have some sort of basic understanding of God and how He want us to act. It seems to be inbuilt into us to an extent even if different cultures and views distort it.
Jesus came to clarify things but the distortion continues unfortunately.
God wants people to seek Him and His Kingdom and I guess how we live without knowing God is right there watching us is important in being able to judge us.
God showing Himself to us all is something that comes later.

What's your opinion on a place like Papua New Guinea, and the role of missionaries there?
It seems like the people indeed did NOT have a basic understanding of a monotheistic God. They were introduced to this, and have since blended their pre-existing beliefs structures, introduced Christian beliefs, and a changing modern world into various localised syncretic beliefs.
The country is 98% Christian at this point, but that's due to deliberate and very active missionary work over many years.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The God of Zoroastrianism is the God of Christianity, IMO, for example.

It can't be, though. Perhaps they were completely wrong about the Gods, but they weren't monotheists in a Christian sense. I never ever, ever understand this Christian-centric view that all other Gods are just representations of the Christian God. It serves no purpose I can discern except allow for various philosophical questions around how God chooses to reveal himself to be 'answered'.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Umm... I didn't say "My child's birthday cards are always perfect".

Here:

Sorry, but no. For me, I love how imperfect it is. Not only that, comparing the birthday cards year to year becomes fun. If they're always perfect ( iow without improvement ) it's a completely different experience. Try to imagine it. Your child's birthday cards are always perfect, vs, your child's birthday cards are aĺlways improving. Which is better? As I said, it's subjective.
 
Top