Why would gods use cultural diffusion?

dybmh said:

No, it'a actually what I said before: I love the imperfections. The lack of perfection is relevant to me.

Click to expand...

PearlSeeker said:

Yes, but also nothing would live, grow, getting to know... (if there was only perfection).

Click to expand...

Koldo said:

What you call imperfection is not an imperfection if you prefer an imperfect thing over a perfect one.

Click to expand...

dybmh said:

It's the imperfection that I value, because flaws are opportunities. The process of improvement has value to me. Without imperfection, there isn't improvement. I don't value perfection as much.

Click to expand...

Koldo said:

Then those flaws are not truly flaws but rather qualities. You have been mislabeling stuff all along.

Click to expand...

Meow Mix said:

Most religions have a similar line about how foolish the unbelievers are. What then?

Click to expand...

WonderingWorrier said:

The foolishness of believers:
Are their different interpretations lame?

The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools. Proverbs 26:7


Can they be healed?
Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked? Ecclesiastes 7:13


Is their faith blind. Did they lose the path?
And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch? Luke 6:39



Can they not hear the words spoken?
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John 8:43


The lame, the blind, and the deaf.

.

Click to expand...

Vouthon said:

A thought-provoking premise for a thread MM.

There are religions such as Judaism, Sikhism and Islam where the 'text' in its sacred language - Hebrew, Gurmukhī script and Arabic - is the paramount sacral focus and even given a kind of primordial status (i.e. there's a Jewish belief found in the Mishnah that God looked into the Torah while creating the world—that is, he used it as a blueprint as it were for his creation; Muslims likewise believe the Qur'an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated speech of Allah and Sikhs hold their Guru Granth Sahib ji to be infused with the spirit of the eternal Guru). In most branches of Hinduism or Vedanta, the Sanskrit Vedas are also regarded as nitya (eternal and uncreated), in my understanding.

With reference to your cultural diffusion argument, I think it likely does present a challenge to those religions that, in particular, claim to worship a universal and transcendent God who is the conscious agent or ultimate reality behind the entire universe, with (purportedly) a plan / message / divine order to impart to humanity at large.

This method of delivering - or discovering - an 'eternal' (without beginning or end) truth on the part of a prophet or mystic, who then conveys it via his / her contingent literary production, which is limited by its genesis and reception by readers / listeners in a given language with a certain phonetic word order in a script comprehensible only to those fluent and literate in that tongue and at a certain point in time.....yes indeed, I can see why this might all seem like an implausible mode of transmission for a timeless, self-existent and infinite Supreme Being who is omnipresent and sustains the entirety of the cosmos.

There's definitely an issue here, with the truth / revelation / message itself meant to be eternal and imperishable yet its manifestation is certainly not eternal, and actually can be relatively limited in its availability by a variety of linguistic, cultural, educational and geographical barriers.

When it comes to Christianity - and especially traditional Catholic and Orthodox Christianity - I think our approach to this issue is a bit distinct from the other faiths already mentioned. For one, the eternal truth is not associated with the written word so much as with a Person (which the written word testifies to), namely Jesus as God incarnate:


Pope Francis: 'The Word of God Precedes the Bible' (learnreligions.com)

Sacred Scripture is the written testimony of the divine Word, the canonical memory that attests to the event of Revelation. However, the Word of God precedes the Bible and surpasses it. That is why the centre of our faith isn't just a book, but a salvation history and above all a person, Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh.

It is precisely because the Word of God embraces and extends beyond Scripture that, in order to properly understand it, the Holy Spirit's constant presence, who guides us "to all truth," is necessary. ​

Scripture and Tradition

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
​

Christianity began in Jerusalem when disciples of Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed that he was the expected Messiah, after having a range of allegedly visionary experiences following his execution. From the earliest days, the church regarded itself as the guardian of a developing oral tradition supposedly passed down from these disciples, a portion of which was eventually committed to writing, in Koine Greek, in the form of the New Testament.

This sacred tradition was - and is - flexible and adapted quickly to a multiplicity of languages and cultures, resulting in a startling diversity of liturgical rites, each 'inculturating' the message of the gospel in a different language, with its own unique customs. I think Christianity harvested and acted upon what already existed. And that's because it's not a religion confined by one sacred language or culture.

As the Latin Church Father St. Augustine of Hippo wrote in his mammoth tome, The City of God (413–426 CE):


Philip Schaff: NPNF1-02. St. Augustine's City of God and Christian Doctrine - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

"This heavenly city [the Church], then, while it sojourns on earth, calls citizens out of all nations, and gathers together a society of pilgrims of all languages, not scrupling about diversities in the manners, laws, and institutions whereby earthly peace is secured and maintained, but recognizing that, however various these are, they all tend to one and the same end of earthly peace. It therefore is so far from rescinding and abolishing these diversities, that it even preserves and adopts them." (De civitate Dei Ch. XXV)​

The Anglican scholar, Professor John Barton of Oxford University, explained in relation to the apostolic Tradition:

“the earliest Christians perceived the traditions about Jesus as oral…it is well known that many of the Fathers cite sayings not recorded in any existing Gospel, the so-called agrapha. Certainly it is still true for Irenaeus that words of Jesus have an authority which has little to do with whether or not they stand in a written gospel…These traditions are cited as ‘what all Christians know’, not as facts attested by specific documents…Christians who saw things this way agreed in principle with Papias that, ‘I do not think that what was taken from books would profit me so much as what came from the living and abiding voice’’” (John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text p.99).​

Moreover, when I read your words in the OP "it would be trivially easy to just implant whatever knowledge is supposed to be gleaned by the holy text directly into every newborn", I'm reminded of our actual doctrine of the semina verbi. The prologue to John's gospel affirms that “the Word [pre-incarnate Jesus] is the true light that enlightens every man coming into the world” (John 1:9):

"We have been taught that Christ is the First-born of God, and…that he is the logos of whom every race of men and women were partakers."​

(St. Justin Martyr 1997, First Apology, l.46)
​

St. Paul likewise informs us of pagans being able to access the 'natural law' of God inhering in every conscience and thus attaining salvation in Christ: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the Law, do by nature what the Law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the Law, since they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness" (Romans 2:14).

And St. John Chrysostom (347-407), Archbishop of Constantinople and an important early church father, addressed this doctrine in his Homily 8 on the Gospel of John, in the context of an exegetical commentary on John 1:9:


CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 8 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

"How then does He [the Word of God] light every man? He lights all as far as in Him lies [...] For the grace is shed forth upon all, turning itself back neither from Jew, nor Greek, nor Barbarian, nor Scythian, nor free, nor bond, nor male, nor female, nor old, nor young, but admitting all alike, and inviting with an equal regard."​

Click to expand...

dybmh said:

OK, they're qualities which define imperfection, not perfection.

Click to expand...

Koldo said:

If they were, you would never rather choose something that has them.

Click to expand...

Meow Mix said:

Well, is the goal of a holy text to be read and understood by people: to transmit information to them?

Click to expand...

Shakeel said:

I think that would better describe the purpose of revealing a holy book.

According to the Qur'an this life is a test. If people were created the way you suggest, there would be no test. That's what I mean when I say you assume a goal of your own to be the goal of God and the human race.

Still, there is something called fitrah in Islam.

The Fitrah

We (all people) have made a covenant with Allah and testified that He is our Lord.

7:172 "And [mention] when your Lord took from the children of Adam - from their loins - their descendants and made them testify of themselves, [saying to them], "Am I not your Lord?" They said, "Yes, we have testified." [This] - lest you should say on the day of Resurrection, "Indeed, we were of this unaware."'

The covenant taken from the sons of Adam is the fitrah - Islam Question & Answer

Click to expand...

dybmh said:

perfection and imperfection are mutally exclusive. If I prefer imperfection; I don't prefer perfection.

Imperfection != perfection by defintion.

Edit to add: Ya know... there's a such a thing as "too perfect".

Click to expand...

Koldo said:

1) Perfect is, by definition, better than imperfect.

Click to expand...

Koldo said:

2) To prefer something is to consider one thing better than the other.
3) To prefer something imperfect over what is perfect is therefore to consider what is imperfect better than what is perfect.
4) However, given #1 and #2, it is impossible to consider, fully aware, what is imperfect better than what is perfect.

Click to expand...

Meow Mix said:

I can introspect that I have no such knowledge. I have never understood this view: that skeptics somehow “know God exists,” but just deny it. We skeptics can immediately know any such worldview is wrong by mere introspection.

Click to expand...

Justanatheist said:

People like myself will assure you that we were given no such knowledge, why do you think I am lying?

Click to expand...

1213 said:

Yes, no doubt you will assure so. But, how could I believe that? Don’t worry, we can let this be, you don’t have to agree with me. I only hope you speak truth to yourself.

…Who shall live on your holy hill? He who walks blamelessly does what is right, And speaks truth in his heart…
Ps. 15:1-5

Click to expand...

1213 said:

People can quite easily deceive themselves, when trying to avoid something they don’t like. But, difficult to see is it true. Still, I believe people feel deep in side of them that this is true.

Click to expand...

firedragon said:

Im curious to understand what you are saying here. What do you understand as "lame" here?

Click to expand...