How does God work again?

[atanu]

The quote above was posted in a discussion thread, and I did not want to interrupt that. Still, there is something here that I think really needs to be discussed, and that is what I've highlighted in red. It says, "[G]od made then cosmos, and then he sent [J]esus [C]hrist to show us the rules of how we should play the game of life.

Is this really, given the history of the human race as far as we know it, really likely to be the case, or even close?

Consider the human timeline, first (condensed and paraphrased from Wikipedia Timeline of human prehistory - Wikipedia):
200,000 years ago homo sapiens appears in Africa
170,000 years ago humans are wearing clothes (the Bible makes that about 6,000 years ago)
82,000 years ago the earliest evidence of personal adornment (perforated seashell beads) in Morocco
70,000 years ago the earliest abstract or symbolic art in Blombos Cave, South Africa
50,000 years ago the earliest sewing needle
42,000 years ago paleolithic flutes in Germany
40,000 - 30,000 years ago the first human settlement in Australia
28,500 years ago New Guinea is populated
20,000 years ago the Kebaran culture in the Levant
20,000 years ago, storage and cooking vessels in China
13,000 years ago the first domestication of sheep
12,000 years ago, Jericho is settled

I could go on and on and on. There were whole civilizations -- all over the world, including all of continents except Antarctica -- for more than 10,000 years before Christ came along. There were entire religions in every corner of this planet before, in fact, the Jews had even heard from (or rather invented) Yaweh!

And for reasons that nobody can give even a remotely reasonable explanation for, this god and this Jesus -- presumably all-powerful, chose a little place at the far end of the Mediterranean Sea -- and only there -- to deliver these rules, leaving all other places in the world unenlightened until Christians could dream up missionaries to go tell them the "good news?" And even then, we cannot forget, that the majority of humans in the world right up until today do not believe in the Christian "rules of how we should play the game of life."

I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could ignore all of that in order to believe that the Christian version is true in any sense. What was god doing all that time, and in all those other places? And why? Anybody got any ideas that take this out of the realm of myth and into the realm of believability?

Because this is in General Religious Debate section that I am responding. I note a couple of problems in your post. First, your post is in response to a personal view and thus cannot tar a whole religion. Second, you have not explained why God cannot send its emissary at any time and to any place as it deems fit.

 

[Apologes]

Your question assumes that it is somehow irrational to believe that God would begin his plan of salvation at that specific point in time, on that given location and under those circumstances. Before your challenge can even get off the ground you first need to support that assumption.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Your question assumes that it is somehow irrational to believe that God would begin his plan of salvation at that specific point in time, on that given location and under those circumstances. Before your challenge can even get off the ground you first need to support that assumption.

Yes, it's a given that god--- being all-powerful, can do what it pleases, as it pleases.

The question is WHY wait 1000's of generations, and WHY limit itself to that tiny little speck of land?

What possible motive would this god have, to be so.... tiny in it's scope?

 

[Apologes]

Yes, it's a given that god--- being all-powerful, can do what it pleases, as it pleases.

The question is WHY wait 1000's of generations, and WHY limit itself to that tiny little speck of land?

What possible motive would this god have, to be so.... tiny in it's scope?

My response would simply be to ask why not?

 

[InChrist]

According to the scriptures, Jesus came to be the Savior of the world...
for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.(Luke 2:11),
not as a genie to grant wishes of personal gratification, nor to give rules to play the game of life.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because this is in General Religious Debate section that I am responding. I note a couple of problems in your post. First, your post is in response to a personal view and thus cannot tar a whole religion. Second, you have not explained why God cannot send its emissary at any time and to any place as it deems fit.

I am certainly not trying to "tar a whole religion." But the truth remains, even though you are correct that I'm responding to a personal view, that I contend that Christianity believes that God sent an emissary -- Jesus Christ -- about 2,000 years ago, or over 100,000 years AFTER the human race began (or was created). (And by the way, the Jews believe otherwise, and Muslims believe that there was another one, nearly 600 years later with quite a different story to tell.)

Now, certainly I'll admit that it is possible that a God would ignore his own creation for most of its existence, and even then, only send an "emissary" able to reach a small number at the time, and even after 2,000 years, only a third of humanity. But my question is about how likely this is, given the nature of God as described by the Abrahamic religions.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your question assumes that it is somehow irrational to believe that God would begin his plan of salvation at that specific point in time, on that given location and under those circumstances. Before your challenge can even get off the ground you first need to support that assumption.

I support that assumption by accepting the usual definition of God given by the Abrahamic religions: omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, unchanging.

Let's start with the omnibenevolent characteristic first: not to the humans of the first more than 100,000 years, nor to the humans to whom this important "plan of salvation" did not reach (which then takes us to omnipotence and apparent failure).

The Abrahamic religions' various, but largely shared, notions of God simply do not square with the knowledge we have of human prehistory, history and present.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

According to the scriptures, Jesus came to be the Savior of the world...

And as I continue to try to point out, has so far missed the majority of that world.

 

[sealchan]

The quote above was posted in a discussion thread, and I did not want to interrupt that. Still, there is something here that I think really needs to be discussed, and that is what I've highlighted in red. It says, "[G]od made then cosmos, and then he sent [J]esus [C]hrist to show us the rules of how we should play the game of life.

Is this really, given the history of the human race as far as we know it, really likely to be the case, or even close?

Consider the human timeline, first (condensed and paraphrased from Wikipedia Timeline of human prehistory - Wikipedia):
200,000 years ago homo sapiens appears in Africa
170,000 years ago humans are wearing clothes (the Bible makes that about 6,000 years ago)
82,000 years ago the earliest evidence of personal adornment (perforated seashell beads) in Morocco
70,000 years ago the earliest abstract or symbolic art in Blombos Cave, South Africa
50,000 years ago the earliest sewing needle
42,000 years ago paleolithic flutes in Germany
40,000 - 30,000 years ago the first human settlement in Australia
28,500 years ago New Guinea is populated
20,000 years ago the Kebaran culture in the Levant
20,000 years ago, storage and cooking vessels in China
13,000 years ago the first domestication of sheep
12,000 years ago, Jericho is settled

I could go on and on and on. There were whole civilizations -- all over the world, including all of continents except Antarctica -- for more than 10,000 years before Christ came along. There were entire religions in every corner of this planet before, in fact, the Jews had even heard from (or rather invented) Yaweh!

And for reasons that nobody can give even a remotely reasonable explanation for, this god and this Jesus -- presumably all-powerful, chose a little place at the far end of the Mediterranean Sea -- and only there -- to deliver these rules, leaving all other places in the world unenlightened until Christians could dream up missionaries to go tell them the "good news?" And even then, we cannot forget, that the majority of humans in the world right up until today do not believe in the Christian "rules of how we should play the game of life."

I cannot for the life of me understand how anybody could ignore all of that in order to believe that the Christian version is true in any sense. What was god doing all that time, and in all those other places? And why? Anybody got any ideas that take this out of the realm of myth and into the realm of believability?

Even in this Information Age many are secluded in their culture of birth and don't have an interest or inclination regarding seeing outside that...or if they do they treat it with fear and suspicion as they were perhaps taught to do. This belies the depth of their faith of course.

Hopefully younger generations whose culture is less oriented toward the local context will be able to look far beyond the accident of the horizons of their birth. Or at the very least diminish an assumed superiority of that local context.

 

[Apologes]

I support that assumption by accepting the usual definition of God given by the Abrahamic religions: omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, unchanging.

Let's start with the omnibenevolent characteristic first: not to the humans of the first more than 100,000 years, nor to the humans to whom this important "plan of salvation" did not reach (which then takes us to omnipotence and apparent failure).

The Abrahamic religions' various, but largely shared, notions of God simply do not square with the knowledge we have of human prehistory, history and present.

Your argument then boils down to an alleged contradiction between:

1) God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
2) God has revealed himself 2000 years ago in the person of Jesus of Nazareth

with the emphasis being on God's omnibenevolence. There is, however, no explicit contradiction between these 2 statements. Perhaps if I modify the second statement:

2') There have been people before and after Christ who haven't heard of him

Is there a conflict between (1) and (2')? Again, I see no explicit contradiction. The only way for your argument to work would be to add another premise into the mix:

3) If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent he wouldn't have allowed there to be people who haven't heard of Christ

Now there does seem to be a contradiction, however that would depend on the rather dubious premise that you would need to introduce and I see no reason to accept it. What reason can you offer for thinking (3) is true?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

3) If God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent he wouldn't have allowed there to be people who haven't heard of Christ

Now there does seem to be a contradiction, however that would depend on the rather dubious premise that you would need to introduce and I see no reason to accept it. What reason can you offer for thinking (3) is true?

Def 1: Omnibenevolent means (almost literally) "wishing the best for all."
Def 2: Omnipotent means "able to do anything wished for."
If it is necessary to know of Christ for salvation (it might not be, in which case this entire argument is moot), and if there are those (many) who did not or do not or will not know of Christ, then by those definitions, God -- who made that rule -- is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent. Or not either!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To elaborate on my statement in Post #31, this does not take away anybody's "free will" to decide to reject the "gift" of Christ. But it does absolutely require that, while religious beliefs are being formed, the knowledge of the requirement must be available. Thus, a child being raised in a Hindu, or Buddhist or atheist family and community -- even as they are taught from earliest youth their family's and community's faith belief -- the knowledge required for their salvation must be available to them. If it is not, then they have no freedom at all to choose that which is (supposed to be) necessary for their salvation. And if it is not available to them, somehow, then God's omnipotence has failed or He doesn't care, and is not, therefore, omnibenevolent.

 

[Apologes]

Def 1: Omnibenevolent means (almost literally) "wishing the best for all."
Def 2: Omnipotent means "able to do anything wished for."
If it is necessary to know of Christ for salvation (it might not be, in which case this entire argument is moot), and if there are those (many) who did not or do not or will not know of Christ, then by those definitions, God -- who made that rule -- is either not omnibenevolent or not omnipotent. Or not either!

And there lies the problem with the argument (one of them at least). Virtually all Christians believe that those who are ignorant of Christ will be judged based on other criteria. Having mentioned other criteria for salvation, another flaw in the argument appears and that is the fact that God didn't only appear 2000 years ago. Christian doctrine holds that there is a general revelation revealed through a person's conscience and, though it can often be unclear and requires training, everyone can comprehend God's commands in their most basic form.

So really, ever since there was a rational creature capable of comprehending the moral law (man), God's plan for salvation was active. It only progressed from there through the prophets, Israel and had it's fullest revelation in Christ's victory over death. There were none, then, who were somehow not included or held unaccountable according to God's standards.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And there lies the problem with the argument (one of them at least). Virtually all Christians believe that those who are ignorant of Christ will be judged based on other criteria.

Well, the ones who believe that then must admit to NOT believing John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

Having mentioned other criteria for salvation, another flaw in the argument appears and that is the fact that God didn't only appear 2000 years ago. Christian doctrine holds that there is a general revelation revealed through a person's conscience and, though it can often be unclear and requires training, everyone can comprehend God's commands in their most basic form.

You didn't really mention other criteria for salvation (the Bible provides none), you just said Christians believe there are some. Love to hear what they are, and what the justification for that belief might be.

But let me give you an example that you might be hard-pressed to get general Christian agreement on: there's a man, a quite nice man, brought up in a vaguely Christian home in early life, but abandoned to the state as an orphan early on and who really doesn't believe what he was once taught. In fact, after thinking hard for many years, he has had to say, "sorry, but this Christian thing is just much myth and nonsense." Meanwhile, he hurts nobody, gives to charity, tries to help others as best he can, happens to be a homosexual happily living with his life partner for decades and actually getting it on from time-to-time. And refuses to go to church and makes logical arguments against the received faith of not only Christianity but of other, similar religions.

But as I said, otherwise is and does good. Tell me about this person's "salvation."

So really, ever since there was a rational creature capable of comprehending the moral law (man), God's plan for salvation was active. It only progressed from there through the prophets, Israel and had it's fullest revelation in Christ's victory over death. There were none, then, who were somehow not included or held unaccountable according to God's standards.

This is sophistry -- and not even very good sophistry. And it is wonderfully full of holes that I'm sure you don't intend and don't notice. Just as a quick example, consider those "rational creatures" like the civilizations of Central America who, while capable of comprehending "the moral law," also sacrificed human beings by laying them on altars and cutting their hearts out, or throwing them into wells, or whatever else they were sure (by their comprehension of the "moral law") that their god wanted.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

My response would simply be to ask why not?

Why not? Because it diminishes the god in question-- it makes it very, very **small**.

It further makes this god to be **just** a god of the middle east, and no where else.

 

[Apologes]

Well, the ones who believe that then must admit to NOT believing John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me."

You didn't really mention other criteria for salvation (the Bible provides none), you just said Christians believe there are some. Love to hear what they are, and what the justification for that belief might be.

When I read your original post, I took it as a challenge to a common Christian belief, namely that even if granted it still makes no sense in light of our knowledge of the world. You now seem to be conceding that this is not, in fact, what the vast majority of Christians believe. Having done this your argument falls in danger of fading into irrelevance considering how it attacks a view which I don't think many (if any at all) people hold. To most people, then, the argument you propose would be unpersuasive.

You seem to be aware of it to a degree and so you try to show that this widely-held belief is wrong, but in doing so you've implicitly abandoned your original argument (which focused on the fate of the people who live in ignorance of Christ) and are now attempting to show that the belief in general revelation is un-biblical. I think it is apparent that these two are completely different topics so I feel hesitant to jump on to this new issue. Never the less, I will counter you on this particular issue as I find it quite revealing. Two objections:

1) You base your case on a very skewed reading of a passage from the Gospel of John which you take to mean that unless someone comes to know Christ they will not be saved. This kind of literal focus on a single passage really betrays one's lack of understanding of how scriptures ought to be read and that is as a whole.

If your argument is to be granted, then it would follow that all the people who lived before Christ aren't saved. But this is absurd considering how then even the prophets and the saints that the early Christians clearly believed were saved were actually doomed. Noah, Abraham, Moses and the entirety of Israel would, according to your reading of the passage not be saved. This is clearly in violation of the early Christians' beliefs and it is absurd to think that this was the message they were trying to relay in the Gospels. Even from a purely negative stand, a Christian could rightly say "whatever the meaning is of that passage, it cannot be the one your propose".

2) A positive argument in favor of the general revelation can be construed as the concept is found in Paul (perhaps the most influential figure when it came to central teachings of Christianity). In Romans 1 Paul boldly asserts that awareness of God was clear through the things He has made and goes on to say that deep inside people knew the wrongness of idolatry and so "they are without excuse".

This is a clear endorsement of general revelation both in nature and in human conscience that has been present long before Christ and it is from here (and numerous other places) that the Church has throughout it's history affirmed the general revelation so far to the point that I expected it to be general knowledge even to the laymen. Far from being an unjustified doctrine, most scholars recognize it as an early Christian belief.

Therefore, premise (3) of your argument rests an a theological misconception which most Christians do not share. Such an argument will be quite unconvincing.

But let me give you an example that you might be hard-pressed to get general Christian agreement on: there's a man, a quite nice man, brought up in a vaguely Christian home in early life, but abandoned to the state as an orphan early on and who really doesn't believe what he was once taught. In fact, after thinking hard for many years, he has had to say, "sorry, but this Christian thing is just much myth and nonsense." Meanwhile, he hurts nobody, gives to charity, tries to help others as best he can, happens to be a homosexual happily living with his life partner for decades and actually getting it on from time-to-time. And refuses to go to church and makes logical arguments against the received faith of not only Christianity but of other, similar religions.

This is (once again) a very different argument from the one you originally proposed. What you're talking about now is no longer the fate of a person who lived in ignorance of Christ before or after the rise of Christianity, but the fate of a person who has heard of Christ but finds the message uncompelling. This is a drastically different argument and it is one which I am very well aware of. Formal name would be the argument from non-resistant non-belief. In my opinion, the greatest contributor to our understanding of this argument is J.L. Schellenberg. Much could be said about Schellenberg's argument and much has been said, but for the purpose of this thread it is sufficient to say that it is not the topic at hand.

This is sophistry -- and not even very good sophistry. And it is wonderfully full of holes that I'm sure you don't intend and don't notice. Just as a quick example, consider those "rational creatures" like the civilizations of Central America who, while capable of comprehending "the moral law," also sacrificed human beings by laying them on altars and cutting their hearts out, or throwing them into wells, or whatever else they were sure (by their comprehension of the "moral law") that their god wanted.

I've touched on to this earlier, but it is needless to say that the Christian is well aware of the fact that there have been cultures which constructed gods and practiced abominable rituals to please them. The Bible records plenty of that and clearly says that they were doing this in spite of the moral law revealed to them rather than because of it.

Of course, one could be charitable and accept that at least some of these instances were sincere acts of worship thereby making them results of a moral delusion rather than moral rebellion. This would at best raise the problem of why God would allow morally deluded or blind people to commit evil acts rather than limiting these evils on those who reject the moral law given to them. Instead of making your original argument stronger, however, this move would make it fade into obscurity for what you're raising here is a particular version of the problem of evil.

P1) If God exists, He wouldn't allow there to be evil as a result of moral confusion
P2) There is evil as a result of moral confusion
P3) Therefore, God doesn't exist

The reason why I say this makes your argument fade into obscurity is because it attempts to demonstrate the falsehood of a particular Christian belief by basing one of it's premises on the soundness of another argument which (if sound as your original argument requires) already does that. The argument that you propose then becomes pointless (an unnecessary baggage, so to speak) since it doesn't really get you any further than where you already got via the problem of evil. If you wish to, you could press the problem of evil, but when it comes to the argument we're discussing here I think it's safe to say it's not particularly useful.

 

[Apologes]

Why not? Because it diminishes the god in question-- it makes it very, very **small**.

It further makes this god to be **just** a god of the middle east, and no where else.

Neither of those statements seem obvious. Elaborate.

 

[atanu]

I am certainly not trying to "tar a whole religion." But the truth remains, even though you are correct that I'm responding to a personal view, that I contend that Christianity believes that God sent an emissary -- Jesus Christ -- about 2,000 years ago, or over 100,000 years AFTER the human race began (or was created). (And by the way, the Jews believe otherwise, and Muslims believe that there was another one, nearly 600 years later with quite a different story to tell.)

Now, certainly I'll admit that it is possible that a God would ignore his own creation for most of its existence, and even then, only send an "emissary" able to reach a small number at the time, and even after 2,000 years, only a third of humanity. But my question is about how likely this is, given the nature of God as described by the Abrahamic religions.

No. I think, you are still relating to a person's view.

Even the Holy Quran recounts that God's emissaries have been many. . In Gita, it is said that throughout all times, God descends as teacher/guide. But it is human ego that clinging to "I and Mine" makes religious scripture appear parochial.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Neither of those statements seem obvious. Elaborate.

The god of the bible has nothing in it's Official Handbook (bible) that is outside of the middle east-- and a very tiny area of the middle east at that.

Why? Clearly, the authors of the bible were entirely ignorant of Asia, Africa, the Americas, Antarctica, and even of Europe.

Now if the bible's god is the supposed creator of all these places, why did it not reveal information about them? Why the omission?

But it gets even worse-- not a single appearance of the bible's god, after about 400BC, if you don't count Jesus. No burning bushes, no towering pillars of flame or cloud, no death-by-accidental-Ark-touching, none of that.

No all consuming fires burning the altars of rival gods.

No amazing survival from the belly of sea-beasts.

No rivers of blood, no rains of toads, no death of all the firstborn, no parting of seas, none of that.

No fallen walls around an enemy city.

No halting the rotation of the earth-- or literally, "stopping the sun's motion in the sky".

No raining fire and brimstone to destroy a pair of unruly cities. No transforming women into salt. No rescues of men in hungry lion cages. No toppling of giant statues. No giants...!

All of that? Quit Happening.

WHY?

As I said: A very, very tiny god who only seemed to be in it's PRIME, 3000+ years gone, with nothing since.

A very tiny god, at best.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No. I think, you are still relating to a person's view.

Even the Holy Quran recounts that God's emissaries have been many. . In Gita, it is said that throughout all times, God descends as teacher/guide. But it is human ego that clinging to "I and Mine" makes religious scripture appear parochial.

Well, if one takes all the Holy Books of the world? They are all pretty certain that NONE of those "other" books are accurate. They each purport to be the One And Only True Book That Rules Them All.

This has lead to a great many .... wars: Humans in conflict, cutting each other's throats in an argument over what happens to humans when their throats were cut.

If this 'creator' had any sense of Ethics? It would behoove it to Do Something to eliminate all these terminally contradictory books, leaving just the One True Book.

Notebook: It is Impossible for All Holy Books to be True.
However, it is quite possible for all of them to be wrong.