Why would gods use cultural diffusion?

[1213]

... insulting to our intelligence.

How is that insulting your intelligence? Why do you think it is magic? I don’t think there is anything magical.

 

[dybmh]

You are merely using the word complete and incomplete as equal to perfect and imperfect, but you are not saying in what way those first two words actually explain the latter two. That's what a definition should do.

You asked a question, I gave you a simple answer.

As I have said: It is not that perfection is not ideal, it is that what you are calling perfection is not perfection.

Hey, you're welcome to your opinion. The information I'm seeing points in another direction.

BTW, why haven't you addressed the examples I've provided where perfection is not ideal? All you've offered so far is an incomplete definition.

 

[dybmh]

@Koldo,

What's a perfectionist? Is it a good thing?

On the other hand, can a person be faulted for over-improving? Can a person improve too much?

 

[alypius]

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?

But how would the newborn make sense of this implanted knowledge without knowing a language?

 

[Meow Mix]

But how would the newborn make sense of this implanted knowledge without knowing a language?

Seems possible the knowledge could sit there in waiting, not unlike an instinct. We know fear and love before we have words for them.

 

[Koldo]

You asked a question, I gave you a simple answer.

A answer that doesn't mean anything.
When I have asked you for a definition I wanted an explanation for the term, not merely another word that doesn't explain anything.

Hey, you're welcome to your opinion. The information I'm seeing points in another direction.

BTW, why haven't you addressed the examples I've provided where perfection is not ideal? All you've offered so far is an incomplete definition.

I have addressed them by stating you are mislabeling them.

 

[dybmh]

A answer that doesn't mean anything.
When I have asked you for a definition I wanted an explanation for the term, not merely another word that doesn't explain

OK. Please use the definition from: Perfection - Wikipedia.

"Perfection is a state, variously, of completeness, flawlessness, or supreme excellence."

Please note, the defintion uses "or" which supports my original claim that Perfection is subjective. It could be complete **OR** supreme.

I have addressed them by stating you are mislabeling them.

No, that's just handwaving from some random person on the internet. At this point, you're not just arguing with me. You're arguing with Voltaire, Confucius, Aristotle. Each of these have acknowledged that your definition is over simplified. See: Perfect is the enemy of good - Wikipedia

Even Marc Cuban, a famous enterpreneur disagrees with you.

"Perfection is the enemy of profitability,” Cuban said. “Perfection is the enemy of success. You don't need to be perfect, because nobody is.”

He explained that dedication and perseverance are more valuable pursuits than perfection -- especially because time spent trying to reach the unattainable only takes away from the good you can accomplish. Instead, recognizing what you lack and finding people who are willing to help you are two steps toward realizing your vision." - source​

Please explain what is happening when a person says: "It's the thought that counts"? Are all of these people liars or deluded?

 

[Brian2]

Ergo, the value of the Gospel, as a mean to increase salvation odds, is zero.

This is difficult to understand. What do you mean?

Ciao

- viole

For those who truly repent and take up the offer of salvation, eternal life is assured I hear. So the odds of salvation for a true believer seem a lot higher than for those who must rely on being good enough in God's eyes.
What I meant by being chosen is something I do not know really. God chooses and it is not because of anything good in us.
It is like the Jews are God's chosen people and not because of anything good in them.
Sometimes I think God chooses us because of His foreknowledge that we are going to choose Him and so He decides to support us in whatever way He can to make sure we don't fall out of the hand of Jesus. But it is the Father who brings people to Jesus in the first place.
The matter of our choice and God's election is something a bit beyond me.

 

[dybmh]

@Koldo
Does perfection even exist? Can you show me an example of anything perfect? I can easily show you an example of improvement.

Improvement is clearly better, because perfect is an imaginary mental construct. Improvement is tangible. Improvement is real, perfection is not.

FTW.

 

[viole]

For those who truly repent and take up the offer of salvation, eternal life is assured I hear. So the odds of salvation for a true believer seem a lot higher than for those who must rely on being good enough in God's eyes.

That is not what I meant. If I lived and died in a place without Gospel (e.g. in Australia 1000 years ago), I couldn't possibly have been a true believer (of your Jesus), because I did not know that there was a Jesus who sort of died for something called sin, etc. I would have had no clue about any of that.

My question to you is: would I have suffered a disadvantage towards salvation?

t is like the Jews are God's chosen people and not because of anything good in them.

What is more likely: that the creator of the entire Universe chose a tribe in the Middle East, or that a tribe in the Middle East made up a God Who chose them?

Sometimes I think God chooses us because of His foreknowledge that we are going to choose Him

Why a being like God would care if we choose Him is beyond me. Again, what is more likely ....?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

I don't. I was being sarcastic.


Wait - you were talking about the Bible? I don't generally consider the Bible to be evidence of much. It documents what its authors believed and that's about it.

But since you ask, my yardstick for religious claims is this incident:

Ganesha drinking milk miracle - Wikipedia

It's the best evidence for a god or a religion I've ever come across:

- it happened in my living memory, so no "fog of time" to worry about.

- it was corroborated by many people, so we didn't have to rely on just one hearsay account.

...and even then, it's not that compelling. I certainly didn't become a Hindu because of the "milk miracle." I bet you won't be converting because of it either, right?

... but it serves as a useful benchmark: if a piece of "evidence" for some religion isn't as strong as the "milk miracle," then I can safely disregard it.

I have heard people witness to miracles that happened to them or that they saw in a Christian context.
I wonder if the statue miracles were just capillary action as the scientists say.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have heard people witness to miracles that happened to them or that they saw in a Christian context.

And if any of those "miracles" are less compelling than the example I gave, I wouldn't give it any weight whatsoever.

... and I'd argue that if you don't give any weight to the milk "miracle," you shouldn't give weight to less-compelling "miracles" either... even if they're presented in the context of your specific religion.

I wonder if the statue miracles were just capillary action as the scientists say.

That's certainly a plausible explanation, so there can be no reason to assume a miracle without ruling that explanation out.

(And then also ruling out any other plausible explanations)

(And then also establishing that no other naturalistic explanations are possible)

 

[Brian2]

That is not what I meant. If I lived and died in a place without Gospel (e.g. in Australia 1000 years ago), I couldn't possibly have been a true believer (of your Jesus), because I did not know that there was a Jesus who sort of died for something called sin, etc. I would have had no clue about any of that.

My question to you is: would I have suffered a disadvantage towards salvation?

God will judge people from all ages and places. I don't think they will have any disadvantage compared with anyone else. And God can be merciful to people also even if they have not any belief in Jesus.

What is more likely: that the creator of the entire Universe chose a tribe in the Middle East, or that a tribe in the Middle East made up a God Who chose them?

There have been many gods and many tribes but the God of the Jews has been true to His word all the way through.

Why a being like God would care if we choose Him is beyond me. Again, what is more likely ....?

That might be an argument for God choosing us.
The reason would be because He loves us and wants people who, as the Bible says, worship Him in spirit and truth.

 

[Brian2]

And if any of those "miracles" are less compelling than the example I gave, I wouldn't give it any weight whatsoever.

... and I'd argue that if you don't give any weight to the milk "miracle," you shouldn't give weight to less-compelling "miracles" either... even if they're presented in the context of your specific religion.

Well some seem more compelling than the mild drinking statues but that is a matter of opinion. Other people just shrug them off as scams and lies or psychosomatic or whatever.

That's certainly a plausible explanation, so there can be no reason to assume a miracle without ruling that explanation out.

(And then also ruling out any other plausible explanations)

(And then also establishing that no other naturalistic explanations are possible)

True, people who want to believe will believe and others will not.

 

[viole]

God will judge people from all ages and places. I don't think they will have any disadvantage compared with anyone else. And God can be merciful to people also even if they have not any belief in Jesus.

According to what criteria will He judge? And what's the use of the Gospel, if you can be saved without it? Actually, the Gospel seems to add an additional requirement: believe it or else.

So, probably it is much better not to hear of it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The reason would be because He loves us and wants people who, as the Bible says, worship Him in spirit and truth.

Reminds me of that North Korea dictator. What's his name again?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Brian2]

Reminds me of that North Korea dictator. What's his name again?

Ciao

- viole

Worship is reserved for God the one who deserves it.

 

[Brian2]

According to what criteria will He judge? And what's the use of the Gospel, if you can be saved without it? Actually, the Gospel seems to add an additional requirement: believe it or else.

So, probably it is much better not to hear of it.

Ciao

- viole

It seems people will be judged on how they treated others, whether we treated them how we would want to be treated.
Accepting Jesus gives forgiveness for our wrongs and help to be changed to be more loving in how we treat others.
I prefer forgiveness and help to be a better person.
It is not a matter of "believe it or else" because Jesus can always be merciful to anyone at the judgement and it seems that would be based on a person's love for others.
That is something that should not be counted on however. If salvation was as easy without the gospel then there would be no reason for Jesus to have suffered and died.
Better to accept the gift than to think you might be good enough to deserve eternal life.

 

[viole]

It seems people will be judged on how they treated others, whether we treated them how we would want to be treated.
Accepting Jesus gives forgiveness for our wrongs and help to be changed to be more loving in how we treat others.
I prefer forgiveness and help to be a better person.
It is not a matter of "believe it or else" because Jesus can always be merciful to anyone at the judgement and it seems that would be based on a person's love for others.
That is something that should not be counted on however. If salvation was as easy without the gospel then there would be no reason for Jesus to have suffered and died.
Better to accept the gift than to think you might be good enough to deserve eternal life.

Well, we can say with a certain confidence that for the vast majority of humans, Jesus suffered for nothing. Because only a minority had the luxury to be born in a Gospel area, and get old enough to accept that gift.

And as I said, that gift requires an additional requirement that it was not necessary for all those people not knowing. Therefore, it is detrimental towards salvation. It is a gift, but only if we interpret the word "Gift" as a German word.

Ciao

- viole

 

[danieldemol]

But how would the newborn make sense of this implanted knowledge without knowing a language?

An omnipotent God could implant knowledge of a language into newborns if it was necessary, or it could implant the knowledge after the newborns learned language.
In my opinion