A Question for Christians

[Shiranui117]

And that's why Christians almost unanimously agree on the meaning of the scriptures and have worked in such close harmony throughout the ages?

About 2/3 of all Christians (1 billion Catholics and something between 300 and 500 million Orthodox) agree on almost every point of doctrine, outside of Catholic historical innovations concerning the Papacy and a few points of Scholastic theology which crept in around 1100 years ago. It's only been in the last 200 years or so that Protestant Christians decided to start going off the deep end and fracturing more ways than a window hit with buckshot.

I don't know why you think Pictionary, as you describe it, would be the only other option available to an all-knowing God.

If you rule out language as being "obsolete", shapes and symbols as culturally dependent, and conscience as impressionable at best, we're fairly limited as to what else humans would be able to understand as some sort of complex message.

However, I don't know how anything could be more useless to human understanding than old, mistranslated documents.

Yeah, who needs stuff like the works of Greek and Roman philosophers, Babylonian and Persian histories and legal codes, ancient and medieval chronicles of history, Mayan calendar systems, Egyptian hieroglyphs, Arabian medical codices, or anything representative of human knowledge and progress from the last 5,000 years? They're all just old, mistranslated documents.

No soldiers aren't taught that because who's to say what is a good reason. Soldiers are trained to follow orders or there will be hell to pay. After Nuremberg the USA military said the soldier should refuse "unlawful" orders. But what orders are unlawful? The soldier has to follow his conscience and hope the order he refuses is unlawful.

You completely missed my point. My point was that a soldier in this day and age would have a bad conscience after being ordered to kill civilians. Soldiers in prior centuries had no moral quandaries about doing this. "These non-combatants aren't part of my tribe? They're one of the enemy? They deserve death, and I will happily be the one to do the deed." And they would slaughter a village, go drink and have their way in a tavern, and go to bed happy and content. That's as simple as it was. Christianity was one of the driving forces behind changing that mentality to respecting the human dignity of even one's enemies.

Again, you're retroactively and Western-centrically projecting our modern Western values onto cultures in different places and eras, when the point of this current part of the discussion is that the human conscience is not uniform across different cultures from different times and places. Conscience can be shaped and changed by one's society, religion, family and upbringing. Thus, it's no more reliable a way for God to communicate to us than is human language. At least a human language with a writing system is concrete and easily able to be studied, verified and taught to others.

 

[joe1776]

I looked at this, since it originally related to my assertion of moral relativity. I'm curious if you actually read the book review you posted, since it seems to conclude the exact opposite of what you are asserting--namely, that the innateness of morality remains speculative.

Science has not yet demonstrated the innateness with replicated studies. It's going to take more than Paul Bloom's babies. However, science over the last 30 years or so supports the intuitive model of conscience which I propose. There never has been science to support the rationalist model which offers the popular myth that morality is taught and learned.
The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

 

[Axe Elf]

Science has not yet demonstrated the innateness with replicated studies. It's going to take more than Paul Bloom's babies. However, science over the last 30 years or so supports the intuitive model of conscience which I propose. There never has been science to support the rationalist model which offers the popular myth that morality is taught and learned.
The New Science of Morality | Edge.org

Now I'm convinced you're not reading these articles--or at least you're not understanding them any more than you're understanding why God would want to communicate with His creation in terms it can comprehend.

The only researcher even proposing that morality is innate among the research cited in that article is the previously-examined Paul Bloom, who, as we have seen, has no evidence for his claims, just a hypothesis. While most of the others are investigating the biological processes that result in moral and ethical behavior, they all seem to understand that such behaviors are molded by cultural norms that increase the individual's chance of survival in a given society--not the result of some hardwired genetic code.

 

[joe1776]

About 2/3 of all Christians (1 billion Catholics and something between 300 and 500 million Orthodox) agree on almost every point of doctrine, outside of Catholic historical innovations concerning the Papacy and a few points of Scholastic theology which crept in around 1100 years ago. It's only been in the last 200 years or so that Protestant Christians decided to start going off the deep end and fracturing more ways than a window hit with buckshot.

Your claims are obviously exaggerated. In a recent thread on the topic of Hell, we read a dozen different versions from Christians on what Hell was like. Some progressive Christians don't think Hell exists.

If you rule out language as being "obsolete", shapes and symbols as culturally dependent, and conscience as impressionable at best, we're fairly limited as to what else humans would be able to understand as some sort of complex message.

Why do you assume we need a complex message? As for moral guidance, I think we only need to understand how to use conscience.

You completely missed my point. My point was that a soldier in this day and age would have a bad conscience after being ordered to kill civilians. Soldiers in prior centuries had no moral quandaries about doing this. "These non-combatants aren't part of my tribe? They're one of the enemy? They deserve death, and I will happily be the one to do the deed." And they would slaughter a village, go drink and have their way in a tavern, and go to bed happy and content. That's as simple as it was. Christianity was one of the driving forces behind changing that mentality to respecting the human dignity of even one's enemies.

You are trying to give Christianity credit for a moral advance that it had nothing to do with.

The men who wrote the Bible were citizens of morally immature cultures. That's why they saw nothing wrong with slavery or treating women like property. They couldn't possibly foresee the time when civilian populations would be treated differently than combatants. In fact, that moral advance wasn't made until after the Second World War.

Again, you're retroactively and Western-centrically projecting our modern Western values onto cultures in different places and eras, when the point of this current part of the discussion is that the human conscience is not uniform across different cultures from different times and places. Conscience can be shaped and changed by one's society, religion, family and upbringing. Thus, it's no more reliable a way for God to communicate to us than is human language. At least a human language with a writing system is concrete and easily able to be studied, verified and taught to others.

I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong about conscience being shaped by culture. So, there's no point in going on here.

 

[joe1776]

Now I'm convinced you're not reading these articles--or at least you're not understanding them any more than you're understanding why God would want to communicate with His creation in terms it can comprehend.

The only researcher even proposing that morality is innate among the research cited in that article is the previously-examined Paul Bloom, who, as we have seen, has no evidence for his claims, just a hypothesis. While most of the others are investigating the biological processes that result in moral and ethical behavior, they all seem to understand that such behaviors are molded by cultural norms that increase the individual's chance of survival in a given society--not the result of some hardwired genetic code.

I have been following the science on conscience for the last 20 years. You for the last 20 minutes. But you write like you think you know it all. It's off-topic anyway so I won't give this more time.

 

[Shiranui117]

Your claims are obviously exaggerated. In a recent thread on the topic of Hell, we read a dozen different versions from Christians on what Hell was like. Some progressive Christians don't think Hell exists.

Yes, and those progressive Christians have only existed for about 100 or so years. Thank you for proving my point.

Why do you assume we need a complex message? As for moral guidance, I think we only need to understand how to use conscience.

You have no empirical evidence to support the idea that everybody's conscience is the exact same and is independent of all cultural influence. Not even historical case studies of different cultures.

The recorded history is human experience. We have learned from that, but the rest of it is just old stuff we put in a mus

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only reason we know where we've been is because we have those ancient documents to tell us what life and people and civilizations were like back then.

You're the first atheist I've ever seen who says that learning about history using primary sources is useless. Heck, you might be the first human I've met to say such things.

You are trying to give Christianity credit for a moral advance that it had nothing to do with.

Christianity had everything to do with it. Pagan cultures would routinely destroy entire cities, slaughtering people indiscriminately and sacrificing people to their gods, and this was smiled upon and blessed (and often even commanded) by the priests of the old gods. Christianity forbids even thinking about killing people, and condemns taking up the sword even to defend Christ Himself. Humanism was founded and pioneered by convinced Christian scholars and intellectuals such as Erasmus.

The men who wrote the Bible were citizens of morally immature cultures. That's why they saw nothing wrong with slavery or treating women like property.

Yes, because the husband supporting his wife and giving himself in love to her is obviously wrong and evil, and admonishing slavemasters to be kind, patient and gentle towards their slaves and forbidding slaves from being mistreated or even struck is just cruel and inhumane.

They couldn't possibly foresee the time when civilian populations would be treated differently than combatants. In fact, that moral advance wasn't made until after the Second World War.

This is objectively and historically false. I guess you haven't heard of the Geneva Conventions?

I'm not going to convince you that you're wrong about conscience being shaped by culture. So, there's no point in going on here.

That's because you have no evidence to support your claim, and you yourself admitted it. So I think we're done here.

 

[Axe Elf]

I have been following the science on conscience for the last 20 years. You for the last 20 minutes. But you write like you think you know it all. It's off-topic anyway so I won't give this more time.

Well, I've had a Master's degree in Psychology for the last 31 years, and I've worked with delinquent children (you know, the ones who haven't innately developed a moral conscience) for about 25 of those years, so there's that. But I don't think I'm writing like I know it ALL--just like I know more than you.

 

[joe1776]

'....Christianity forbids even thinking about killing people, and condemns taking up the sword even to defend Christ Himself. ...

What! Christians killed people in the name of God,including other Christians, in wars throughout its bloody history.

Yes, and those progressive Christians have only existed for about 100 or so years. Thank you for proving my point.

Please explain what point you think was proved.

You have no empirical evidence to support the idea that everybody's conscience is the exact same and is independent of all cultural influence. Not even historical case studies of different cultures

.There's no empirical evidence on either side of the topic.But there's logic against your position.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The only reason we know where we've been is because we have those ancient documents to tell us what life and people and civilizations were like back then.

You misread what I wrote about the value of history

Yes, because the husband supporting his wife and giving himself in love to her is obviously wrong and evil, and admonishing slavemasters to be kind, patient and gentle towards their slaves and forbidding slaves from being mistreated or even struck is just cruel and inhumane.

So, are you saying that since the Bible urges nice treatment of women, it's OK to treat them as property? And how about slavery? Does God condone slavery if you aren't cruel to them?

This is objectively and historically false. I guess you haven't heard of the Geneva Conventions?

The Geneva Conventions didn't prevent civilian populations from being bombed in World War Two.

That's because you have no evidence to support your claim, and you yourself admitted it. So I think we're done here.

Don't you realize that when you need to twist your debate opponents words to score a point in debate that you're revealing frustration? What I said was there's no empirical evidence on either side of the conscience question yet. However, it's only a matter of time before the science catches up with the logic.

 

[joe1776]

Well, I've had a Master's degree in Psychology for the last 31 years, and I've worked with delinquent children (you know, the ones who haven't innately developed a moral conscience) for about 25 of those years, so there's that. But I don't think I'm writing like I know it ALL--just like I know more than you.

Okay, here's a challenge for you: You start a thread explaining the hypothesis on conscience you support and I'll meet you there. Let's debate it.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

First what proof do you have that God as being ( All Knowing)

Seeing you have no idea or clue, that when the first 5 books of the bible was Writtten, was written in the Hebrew Language.
As was all the other books of the old testament scripture's.

The New Testament was written in both Hebrew and Greek languages.

And then later as people begun to learn other languages, They begun to give the interpretation of those other languages into their own language.

But seeing they didn't have the necessary documents to translate the Hebrew and Greek into the English language.
But they did the best that they could with what limited tools they had at the time.

Why is it that people to day, seems to think that people back 300 to 400 years ago, should do a complete job in the translation of other languages, when those people did not have the technology that we have to day in having the necessary documents,tools to do a complete job of translation of languages

 

[joe1776]

First what proof do you have that God as being ( All Knowing)

None. My premise is that most Christians believe that.

Seing you have no idea or clue, that when the first 5 books of the bible was Writtten, was written in theHeb rew Language.As was all the other books of the old testament scripture's

False claim. I knew that and wrote that.

The New Testament was written in both Hebrew and Greek languages.

Yes. I knew that. Both languages now obsolete.

And then later as people begun to learn other languages, They begun to give the interpretation of those other languages into their own language.

Thus the mistranslations.

But seeing they didn't have the necessary documents to translate the Hebrew and Greek into the English language. But they did the best that they could with what limited tools they had at the time.

Still claiming, despite the risk of translation mistakes, that their work was inspired by God, I presume.

Why is it that people to day, seems to think that people back 300 to 400 years ago, should do a complete job in the translation of other languages, when those people did not have the technology that we have to day in having the necessary documents,tools to do a complete job of translation of languages.

False claim. The question in the OP doesn't criticize the people who did the translations.

 

[Axe Elf]

Okay, here's a challenge for you: You start a thread explaining the hypothesis on conscience you support and I'll meet you there. Let's debate it.

I'm not particularly interested. You were looking for a Christian who knew more than you, or who had a deeper understanding than you, to answer a simple question for you, and I was here for you. You got what you wanted; be content with that.

 

[metis]

I think it unlikely. What do you think?

Actually it doesn't make a difference what I could think since I can't base any opinion on it one way or the other because of a lack of anything to verify or deny it. Thus I prefer my all so frequent "I don't know" position.

 

[joe1776]

I'm not particularly interested. You were looking for a Christian who knew more than you, or who had a deeper understanding than you, to answer a simple question for you, and I was here for you. You got what you wanted; be content with that.

You made a wise decision not to take me up on my debate challenge.

As for the question in the OP, I got what I expected.

 

[FearGod]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

People thought that God is all-knowing in a sense that he knows what each of us will do
in the future and what you will eat tomorrow..etc.

This is irrational way of thinking, God is all-knowing of what is going on, all-knowing of our intentions
at the moment, but that doesn't mean that God knows what you want to do tomorrow but he
knows what you did during your life at present and the past, but the future depends on you.

That being said, it's people's fault of what happened to the bible, I wonder why we blame God for
our faults, many people think that since God knows about our future then why to care about
believing in God, if he wants me to be good then I'll be good and if he wants me to be bad
then I'll be bad, but no, that's absolutely a misleading.

 

[joe1776]

People thought that God is all-knowing in a sense that he knows what each of us will do
in the future and what you will eat tomorrow..etc.

This is irrational way of thinking, God is all-knowing of what is going on, all-knowing of our intentions
at the moment, but that doesn't mean that God knows what you want to do tomorrow but he
knows what you did during your life at present and the past, but the future depends on you.

That being said, it's people's fault of what happened to the bible, I wonder why we blame God for
our faults, many people think that since God knows about our future then why to care about
believing in God, if he wants me to be good then I'll be good and if he wants me to be bad
then I'll be bad, but no, that's absolutely a misleading.

Yours is not the definition of "all-knowing" in common usage:

Omniscience, also sometimes known as being all-knowing, refers to God’s ability to know absolutely everything.

As to the question in the OP, God would be assumed to know in advance that there would be many misunderstandings created by language translations and misinterpretations

 

[FearGod]

Yours is not the definition of "all-knowing" in common usage:

Omniscience, also sometimes known as being all-knowing, refers to God’s ability to know absolutely everything.

As to the question in the OP, God would be assumed to know in advance that there would be many misunderstandings created by language translations and misinterpretations

Who made such definition for the actual meaning for all-knowing?

 

[Faithofchristian]

None. My premise is that most Christians believe that.

False claim. I knew that and wrote that.

Yes. I knew that. Both languages now obsolete.

Thus the mistranslations.

Still claiming, despite the risk of translation mistakes, that their work was inspired by God, I presume.

False claim. The question in the OP doesn't criticize the people who did the translations.

Yeah, your right about that one, But seeing I am not one of them.
There is no where in the bible that states God as being All Knowing.

There are those Christians that will take things in the bible and give them a twist, so that it appears to say God is All Knowing.

 

[Mister Emu]

What was an all-knowing God's purpose in inspiring men to write the Bible in a language destined to become obsolete, mistranslated and misinterpreted?

Did you really just ask why people who were inspired wrote in their own language?

 

[Quintessence]

Did you really just ask why people who were inspired wrote in their own language?

Yeah, I don't usually read through entire threads that cover Christianity as I don't have a horse in that race, but I read this one. And there were certain questions asked - like this one - that made me go "wait... really? Was that really just asked?"

Also, thanks to @Shiranui117 and @Axe Elf for the interesting insights. It was a good read!