Why is religion correlated with birthplace and birth time?

[truthseeker7]

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?

because all of their holidays are on solstices or equonoxes which ALWAYS have more births

 

[Koldo]

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.

But you are talking about conflicts within a religion. I was talking about conflicts between scriptures from different religions.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

Anything else?

 

[King Phenomenon]

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?

Yeah religions all man-made

 

[sojourner]

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?

Who says Jesus is a "personal god?"

 

[sojourner]

Yeah religions all man-made

You expected something else?

 

[sojourner]

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

What the bible makes obvious (especially in the OT) is that God desires a relationship with Israel.

 

[sojourner]

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

And yet many acknowledge that it is the same god. Precise numbers? Don't have them. But I've read a lot of stuff quoting more than a few indigenous religious leaders.

 

[King Phenomenon]

You expected something else?

Haha definately not

 

[sun rise]

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

They started out with Jewish rituals. Time and place of birth are important but not the only thing,.

 

[Koldo]

And yet many acknowledge that it is the same god. Precise numbers? Don't have them. But I've read a lot of stuff quoting more than a few indigenous religious leaders.

Many who? Which happened to say what exactly?
You are not telling me anything.

 

[Quintessence]

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

Wasn't talking about deistic god(s) - was talking about the one-god in general. The Abrahamic monotheist one, and while the Bible is significant for many of them, it is hardly the be-all and end-all of Abrahamic religions. The nature of their god is actively discussed by theologians and laypersons alike. Interpretations vary, and disagreements are frequent. Those disagreements are no small part of why there are thousands of different traditions that honor the one-god. They have different ideas about that god, different practices, different teachings too.

In short, no, it isn't "obvious" what the one-god wants. It's important to recognize that you're making this assumption for the sake of argument. It's fine to do that, but it's proper to recognize that it is a limitation of your argument. It would also be helpful to not use the word "religion" when you really mean Abrahamic religions, at most.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

It might be a topic for another thread, but I'd be interested in how that is reconciled with apostasy laws.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

but I'd be interested in how that is reconciled with apostasy laws.

It can't be, because "apostasy laws" are antithetical to the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's a political issue not an Islamic one.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It can't be, because "apostasy laws" are antithetical to the Qur'an and Sunnah. It's a political issue not an Islamic one.

That makes sense to me.
To be clear, I'm not asking anyone to speak to the views of all Muslims (just as I wouldn't ask someone to speak for all Christians, or all atheists). I am interested in individuals theological takes though.

Thanks for responding!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is science correlated with birthplace and birth time?

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Because both science and religion are human behaviors.

 

[sojourner]

Many who? Which happened to say what exactly?
You are not telling me anything.

There's a point at which skepticism comes off merely as pedantism.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Think about it.

How do you conclude that "God wants everyone in the planet to know about him"? I understand that this is what you expect to be what he wants but aren't you making an assumption without consulting God about what he wants?

 

[Left Coast]

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?

Here's a subversive third option - 1 Timothy is a pseudepigraphal epistle that doesn't actually represent the original thoughts of Paul or the Christian movement.

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus' disciples ask him why he taught the masses in parables. He replied:

And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that

‘they may indeed look, but not perceive,
and may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’”

Christianity was born as a mystery religion, whose true teachings were only intended for the initiated, enlightened few.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

Indeed. As I alway say: there is are reason why
1. columbus had to explain to the natives in the americas who jesus, jawhe, abraham, etc were
2. pretty much every culture in the history of the world, has their own pretty much mutually exclusive and unique religions and gods. No two distinct cultures ever came up with the same religion and god independently from one another.


Like Ricky Gervais once said about the difference between science and religion...
Imagine if ALL human knowledge and culture disappeared overnight, both physical evidence (like books and temples and such, and the same for all scientific knowledge) and we'ld be propelled back to a time where like when we were just gaining or developing our distinct human cognitive abilities. Essentially "became" human. Every single religion would be lost forever in the pages of history. They couldn't come back. People would not "rediscover" (or rather "reinvent") christianity, islam, the norse gods, the roman pantheon, hinduism, egyptian gods, etc.

More then likely humans would still develop and hold religious beliefs. But they'ld be completely different religions. As different as today christianity is from the norse gods or how different hinduism is from scientology.

But all science would eventually return, because we'ld discover the same facts again. We once more would learn about and discover gravity, electro-magnetism, germs, tectonic activity, the nature of celestial bodies like asteroids and moons and planets and suns/starts etc.