Why is religion correlated with birthplace and birth time?

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Who said all the scriptures must be reconciled though? There is no basis for this.

Whaaat?? Nobody said they must be reconciled but for me, it certainly ends any confusion on the question of whether there is more than one God, or a different God for Christians, a different one for Muslims or Hindus, etc. What's your point?

 

[sojourner]

I agree with Vandana. Divine is divine. Many faces and names for God. People have been having constructive relationships with the divine since before history.

 

[epronovost]

BTW if nature is natural, then how come there are religious people? Is religion natural?

Obviously, religion is a natural phenomenon. There is some interesting research in evolutionary psychology on it's origin.

 

[Koldo]

Whaaat?? Nobody said they must be reconciled but for me, it certainly ends any confusion on the question of whether there is more than one God, or a different God for Christians, a different one for Muslims or Hindus, etc. What's your point?

My point is: There is no basis for your answer to the OP. No basis for saying that native americans had any sort of relationship with God. They had a relationship with other deities.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The title is about religion in general but the OP about Christianity.

My answer to the title is cultural conditioning. People tend to adopt the religion of their birthplace and when they're born.

Babies know what to do with nipples, too. Not very surprising at all, is it?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

My point is: There is no basis for your answer to the OP. No basis for saying that native americans had any sort of relationship with God. They had a relationship with other deities.

You're correct, the post is generally directed at people who believe in the Christian concept of god. If you believe that everyone worships the same god, then the problem doesn't apply as much to your beliefs...

The "other deities" of the Native Americans are facets of the One Diamond (God) I mentioned in an earlier post. Mr. Farnsworth answered thus (above) and I can now assume that you hold the same view, that is, your concept of God is narrowed to a belief that God only manifests in Christian hearts and His Name is Jesus. But I assure you, you will find Christians who have experienced God and understand the truth I'm referring to. Christ is another Name for God Himself, not Jesus' last name; Jesus is the name of a soul who incarnated via a virgin birth and at times was so tuned to God that he was used by God to perform His works and who, by the end of his life, fully surrendered to and became one with Christ, i.e., God.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The problem with that is, I don’t know any reason why I should believe God has not done anything for them.

Also, by what the Bible tells, all modern people are offspring of those who were in the ark. They knew God and then later many of them have rejected God, should God force His message to those who don’t want to hear?

Jesus was sent to declare forgiveness, I think it has worked well this way also. but, the main point is to be, or to become righteous. That is possible, even if one has not heard of Jesus yet.

These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Mat. 25:46

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

People who have not heard of Jesus, can be counted righteous by this:

For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without the law. As many as have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it isn't the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be justified (for when Gentiles who don't have the law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ.
Romans 2:12-16

Again, why does God need missionaries? When Europeans arrived in the Americas, the Native Americans had never even heard of Jesus. If God cared about them, why did he wait for Columbus to arrive? He would have revealed himself directly if he were real.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

You're literally just plagiarizing an argument that God makes in the Qur'an:

they say, ‘We will rather follow what we have found our fathers following.’ What, even if their fathers neither applied any reason nor were guided?! The parable of the faithless is that of someone who shouts after that which does not hear [anything] except a call and cry: deaf, dumb, and blind, they do not apply reason.
(Qur'an, Surah 2:170-171)

Quite often I see atheists (and Christians too) using Quranic arguments, it's quite amusing.

The same argument applies to Islam. Why does Allah only reveal himself through his missionaries? If Allah were real, he wouldn't need missionaries and prophets.

 

[sojourner]

My point is: There is no basis for your answer to the OP. No basis for saying that native americans had any sort of relationship with God. They had a relationship with other deities.

Many Natives acknowledge that what they call "Great Spirit" is what we call "God." Many arboreal religions acknowledge the same. The Inkans acknowledge that their supreme deity Illitexi Wiracocha is what we call "God."

 

[Koldo]

The "other deities" of the Native Americans are facets of the One Diamond (God) I mentioned in an earlier post. Mr. Farnsworth answered thus (above) and I can now assume that you hold the same view, that is, your concept of God is narrowed to a belief that God only manifests in Christian hearts and His Name is Jesus. But I assure you, you will find Christians who have experienced God and understand the truth I'm referring to. Christ is another Name for God Himself, not Jesus' last name; Jesus is the name of a soul who incarnated via a virgin birth and at times was so tuned to God that he was used by God to perform His works and who, by the end of his life, fully surrendered to and became one with Christ, i.e., God.

I don't even think God manifests at all.
I take issue with your position because you don't acknowledge that, at the end of the day, people believed in something other than you do.
You must somehow fit your god where it doesn't belong, for some weird reason.

 

[Koldo]

Many Natives acknowledge that what they call "Great Spirit" is what we call "God." Many arboreal religions acknowledge the same. The Inkans acknowledge that their supreme deity Illitexi Wiracocha is what we call "God."

Many who? How many?
You can find parallel between god beliefs but that doesn't mean they represent the same god.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Many Natives acknowledge that what they call "Great Spirit" is what we call "God." Many arboreal religions acknowledge the same. The Inkans acknowledge that their supreme deity Illitexi Wiracocha is what we call "God."

But prior to the arrival of Europeans, they had never even heard of Jesus. If Jesus is a personal god and wants a relationship with people, what was stopping him from starting a relationship with the Native Americans prior to the arrival of Columbus?

 

[Kenny]

1 Timothy 2:3-4 states "This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our savior, who desires all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth."

Now, why would an omnipotent god who wants everyone to know him struggle so greatly with bringing his knowledge to people, and use such inefficient methods? I've discussed this before, but I think it's worth focusing on a more specific aspect of the problem, namely, that one's religion is so strongly correlated with birth location and the period of history in which one was born. For instance, if a person was born in the Americas prior to the arrival of Columbus, we can guarantee that that person would have never heard of Jesus or any of the events recorded in the bible. Now, supposedly the biblical god is omnipotent and wants the entire world to know about him and have a relationship with him so that they can go to heaven. Yet no one in the North or South American continent had heard of this god before the arrival of Europeans. So my question for Christians is: Doesn't it strike you as odd that an omnipotent god who wants everyone to know about him and could use any method possible to convey this knowledge to people was completely silent toward people in non-Christian cultures prior to the arrival of Christians? What makes more sense to you: The existence of a god who wants everyone on the planet to know he exists and yet never reveals anything about himself to cultures that have not had contact with Christians OR The Christian god is simply another manmade god that was developed by men in the middle east and whose knowledge spread gradually across the world as the people from this region spread across the world? Which of these scenarios explains the utter silence of God in cultures that had not yet been introduced to Christianity by other people?

supportive documentation for your encrusted unbelief?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

supportive documentation for your encrusted unbelief?

You didn't even address my arguments. The onus isn't on me to "document" evidence for my unbelief. I just explained what I see as the strongest evidence against Christianity in my original post. No need for me to go through it again.

 

[Riders]

The title is about religion in general but the OP about Christianity.

My answer to the title is cultural conditioning. People tend to adopt the religion of their birthplace and when they're born.

This being true, don't you think Christians should be Jewish?

 

[Riders]

Who said all the scriptures must be reconciled though? There is no basis for this.

What ? How about logic, if the scriptures of a particular religion say different things about the birth place and time it took place of their savior, it's a contradiction that makes no sense. This is a reason why I can't make sense of Christianity.

 

[Quintessence]

You didn't even address my arguments.

Your arguments rest on premises that do not necessarily hold true. Even you should be aware that assertions of what the one-god "wants" are disputed, at best.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The same argument applies to Islam.

Well Muslims yes, Islam no.

People often take on the beliefs and views of their parents, whether from early on in life or after their adolescent phase. This is often the case whether Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Muslim or Hindu.
As already quoted; Islam, in particular the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad, strongly condemn just following what your parents followed (including for those born Muslim).

Why does Allah only reveal himself through his missionaries? If Allah were real, he wouldn't need missionaries and prophets.

God doesn't reveal itself through missionaries no.

As for Prophets though, completely different kettle of fish. I would prefer you to define what you think God even is before I answer that because I know that the God you disbelieve in is also the God that I disbelieve in.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Your arguments rest on premises that do not necessarily hold true. Even you should be aware that assertions of what the one-god "wants" are disputed, at best.

The Bible makes it obvious that the god wants a personal relationship with people. Obviously the argument doesn't apply to deistic gods.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Well Muslims yes, Islam no.

People often take on the beliefs and views of their parents, whether from early on in life or after their adolescent phase. This is often the case whether Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Muslim or Hindu.
As already quoted; Islam, in particular the Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad, strongly condemn just following what your parents followed (including for those born Muslim).



God doesn't reveal itself through missionaries no.

As for Prophets though, completely different kettle of fish. I would prefer you to define what you think God even is before I answer that because I know that the God you disbelieve in is also the God that I disbelieve in.

How would I define God? Well, it depends on the god. But the god of classical theism (Yahweh/Allah) is pretty simple to define. I would define him as an all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe who cares about people's morals and what they believe, and wants to be involved in people's lives and have a relationship with people.