Why is religion correlated with birthplace and birth time?

[sojourner]

I have heard a lot of native americans saying their gods have nothing to do with the christian god. But I won't say who they are nor what exactly they have said, and you will have to accept this claim as true.

Ok. I'm sure there's a mixture of both; I have no reason to believe you'd lie.

 

[Clear]

supportive documentation for your encrusted unbelief?

KenS asked Hubbert Farnsworth “supportive documentation for your encrusted unbelief?” #33

I agree with @KenS that the O.P. makes multiple theoretical assumptions in its specific, oversimplified model without supporting data.

For examples

THE ASSUMPTION OF GODS’ MAIN GOAL OF CREATION
Hubbert Farnsworths model seems to assume Gods’ main goal is wanting ”everyone to know him”;
God “wants the entire world to know about him and have a relationship to him so they can go to heaven”
God “wants everyone on the planet to know he exists”


The assumption that THIS is Gods main goal does not take into account any OTHER potential overarching Goals for the existence of Mortality.

For example, if Gods goal is to have the spirits of mankind to learn for themselves, by their own experience the difference between good and evil (and the disastrous consequences of choosing evil) and thus learning to choose Good independent of whether a God exists or not then God MUST remain somewhat aloof.

For example, Clement, the Colleague of the Apostle Peter discusses not only why God must remain partly anonymous, and similarly, why God cannot simply reward good and evil immediately. “We are being trained by the present life in order that we may be crowned in the life to come. None of the righteous ever received his reward quickly, but waits for it. For if God paid the wages of the righteous immediately, we would soon be engaged in business, not godliness; though we would appear to be righteous, we would in fact be pursuing not piety but profit…. ” 2 Clement 20:2-4

If mankind KNEW that there was a God and KNEW they would be immediately punished for bad behaviors and immediately rewarded for good behaviors then they would tend to engage in the “business” of gaining reward for the sake of reward and not choose good for it’s own sake.

Mankind must be completely free to choose evil without fear of punishment as they are free to choose good without guarantee of reward if they are to see what they would choose without any outside influence at all. Thus 1Q, 4Q, and 5Q documents explain that “All people walk in both wisdom and foolishness…. As is a person’s endowment of truth and righteousness, so shall he hate perversity; conversely, in proportion to bequest in the lot of evil, one will act wickedly and abominate truth. God has appointed these spirits as equals until the time of decree and renewal. 1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4


THE O.P. ASSUMPTION OF ILLOGICAL OMNIPOTENCE

The O.P. assumes God “Could use any method possible to convey this knowledge”.

Similarly, this simple assumption excludes principles of reticence and anonymity which must exist if mankind are to learn to make choices independent of the existence of God. The assumption doesn’t negate reasons God would choose to allow man to learn certain principles by mankinds own experience. Is it logically possible for mankind to learn certain principles by their own experience without having experience?


THE O.P. ASSUMPTION THAT GOD DOES NOT COMMUNICATE TO NON-CHRISTIANS

The O.P. assumes that God is “Completely silent toward people in non-Christian cultures” and God “Never reveals anything about himself to cultures that have not had contact with Christians”


I find it naïve to believe that various versions of Gods moral message did not exist in other cultures in greater and lesser degrees of purity and in one version or another. Even the Maggi from the east had a version of expectation of a Messiah that described a messiah and a star at his birth. Multiple cultures have versions of moral codes taught to them. Even the Jewish tradition tells us that all nations were offered the Torah and we have no reason to assume that God did not give them revelations as well.

Thus, the O.P. assume assumes that mankind of other cultures have not had contact with God inside their own cognitive and symbolic language.

For example, the theory underlying the O.P. doesn’t account for the effect of the spirit of God among various cultures outside Christianity. For example, the Jewish principle that God “shall sprinkle each with a spirit of truth, effectual against all the abominations of lying and sullying by an unclean spirit. Thereby He shall give the upright insight into the knowledge of the Most High and the wisdom of the angels (1QS, 4Q255-264a, 5Q11 Col 4)

This theory does not account for the principle that, during this process of moral tutoring, all individuals will come in contact with moral choice and all will learn important lessons about the material world and its characteristics.

This theory does not take into account the potential for prophetic and spiritual principles existing among other cultures or in pre-written history, nor does it seem to recognize the moral tutoring that inspired individuals among different cultures provided.

The theory does not take into account the period of existence prior to creation and the plan of God as it relates to moral and social preparation of spirits as part of the plan to tutor and educate the spirits of mankind in preparation to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony.

The Theory does not take into account the prior relationship God had with the spirits of mankind prior to their birth in early Pre-existence Judeo-Christianity.

The theory does not take into account that pre-birth relationship of spirits with God may have determined the situation one is born into in this life. In this respect, I like Billiardsballs’ point in post #78 that God “has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us…”

This simple theory does not take into account the world of spirits after death where such education may continue and a re-uniting of the prior relationship with God that originated before birth continues.

In any case, i think the O.P. presents an over-simplified theory that has insufficient data underlying it's assumptions.

Clear
νετζτωω

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, and we end here again. Religion is natural and so is science, so this will still be here:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Indeed here we are again, with the go-to link that doesn't at all refute, or even addresses, the point being made.

You don't have to tell me that religion and the rest of that can't be with done science, because those are subjective and science is objective. Now tell me which of the two, subjective and objective, are most useful?

The objective.

Right, you can't do that with science. That wouldn't change.

Can't do what with science? Demonstrating statistically that medical science is actually usefull in curing desease instead of merely praying for a cure?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, I will listen you to you, when you solve these:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

That science is useful, is subjective.

It's not. Science demonstrably is usefull in figuring out how the world works, objectively.

Hence why you can build a computer using science, while you can't while ignoring science.
And that goes for literally any tool, device, medical treatments, etc.

Praying for having the blueprint of a pc revealed to you, does not enable you to build a pc. Building technology based on scientific theories, does.
Praying for a cure of some deadly desease doesn't work. Creating cures based on scientific principles, does.
Praying for a wireless communication device, doesn't work. Creating one based on scientific theories, does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The answer is this simple: We humans have not made God our goal nor truth that important for us to unite on, as a result, we choose the religion that is convenient for us.

99% of people never actively "choose" a religion. Instead, they are brought up / indoctrinated in one by their parents.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes...very funny

So why is that, in your opinion?

Why does every single original culture, have it's own distinct, unique and mutually exclusive religion?
Why isn't there a single other independent culture in the entire history of the planet, that came up with christianity independently of middle eastern culture?

Or in more generic terms: why isn't there a single independend culture in the entire history of the world, that stumbled upon the same religion independently from another cutlure in the entire history of the world?

Why does every unique independent culture have its own equally unique and independend religion? So unique and independend that it's incompatible with other unique religions in almost every way?

And why can so many extant religions be traced back to older religions from ancestral cultures which simply got tweaked / added to / reinvented?

Don't you think this poses a problem for the idea that there is a single religion out there (no matter which one) which supposedly is the "one true religion"?

If there is a religion that is the "one true religion", why are all religions then uniquely tied to the culture in which they surfaced?

I'ld expect that multiple cultures would have managed to uncover the "one true religion" then.
Like when what happened quite a few times in science, where multiple scientists independendly from one another conclude the same explanatory ideas...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Indeed here we are again, with the go-to link that doesn't at all refute, or even addresses, the point being made.


The objective.



Can't do what with science? Demonstrating statistically that medical science is actually usefull in curing desease instead of merely praying for a cure?

You are not that good at English. Curing disease is useful for humans. You left out that something useful, is useful to somebody. That is what makes it subjective.
Now that objectivity is useful to you is subjective. If I asked you for evidence for it being useful, you couldn't observe it, because you don't see it. You experience it in your mind first person subjectively as useful.

You really need to learn to understand better how the world works, if you want to claim that you understand it. You don't even know that useful it is subjective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's not. Science demonstrably is usefull in figuring out how the world works, objectively.

Hence why you can build a computer using science, while you can't while ignoring science.
And that goes for literally any tool, device, medical treatments, etc.

Praying for having the blueprint of a pc revealed to you, does not enable you to build a pc. Building technology based on scientific theories, does.
Praying for a cure of some deadly desease doesn't work. Creating cures based on scientific principles, does.
Praying for a wireless communication device, doesn't work. Creating one based on scientific theories, does.

Again with useful being objective. What does it look like, how do you measure it using a scientific measurement standard, what instrument do you use? It seems you are not that good at understanding how science works.

 

[Kenny]

So why is that, in your opinion?

Why does every single original culture, have it's own distinct, unique and mutually exclusive religion?
Why isn't there a single other independent culture in the entire history of the planet, that came up with christianity independently of middle eastern culture?

Or in more generic terms: why isn't there a single independend culture in the entire history of the world, that stumbled upon the same religion independently from another cutlure in the entire history of the world?

Why does every unique independent culture have its own equally unique and independend religion? So unique and independend that it's incompatible with other unique religions in almost every way?

And why can so many extant religions be traced back to older religions from ancestral cultures which simply got tweaked / added to / reinvented?

Don't you think this poses a problem for the idea that there is a single religion out there (no matter which one) which supposedly is the "one true religion"?

If there is a religion that is the "one true religion", why are all religions then uniquely tied to the culture in which they surfaced?

I'ld expect that multiple cultures would have managed to uncover the "one true religion" then.
Like when what happened quite a few times in science, where multiple scientists independendly from one another conclude the same explanatory ideas...

You have changed the goal post. My statement was that God did and does try to reach people. How they respond is varied.

I think there is a beginning point and all points deviate from than one truth. Like most religions talk about a flood, there is always a strain of truth.

But God is merciful and gracious in and through it all

 

[1213]

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.

I don’t see any reason to think God needs it. It can be that this is the way how God wants things to go. And I believe God has good reason for it. Maybe Native Americans didn’t need the Gospel before it came to them.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I don’t see any reason to think God needs it. It can be that this is the way how God wants things to go. And I believe God has good reason for it. Maybe Native Americans didn’t need the Gospel before it came to them.

I thought the general Christian perspective was that we are all sinners, and everyone needs the gospel.

 

[Quintessence]

A real god wouldn't need a bible written by humans to speak through. Funny how "God's word" is only heard through humans.

I'm sorry, but there is just something bizarre about this response.

As someone who describes themselves as an atheist, how is it your affair to define what "real gods" are? You reject the very notion of gods. You have no gods, "real" or otherwise, and it makes not a lick of sense for you to be talking to us about what a "real god" would or wouldn't do in light of that.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm sorry, but there is just something bizarre about this response.

As someone who describes themselves as an atheist, how is it your affair to define what "real gods" are? You reject the very notion of gods. You have no gods, "real" or otherwise, and it makes not a lick of sense for you to be talking to us about what a "real god" would or wouldn't do in light of that.

We define gods as being able to do anything they want. So of course a real god wouldn't need people to write his words down for him. Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I can't discuss its characteristics based on the universally agreed upon definition of it.

 

[Quintessence]

We define gods as being able to do anything they want.

No, we don't. You are speaking solely for yourself here.

The overwhelming majority of gods humans have honored throughout history are not able to do "anything they want." The one-god is a notable exception to this rule, and in the one-god's case we then have the problem of knowing what that god wants. As mentioned already, that question is a source of considerable debate amongst those who study and honor that god.

Just because I don't believe in something doesn't mean I can't discuss its characteristics based on the universally agreed upon definition of it.

True, but it's not even remotely a "universally agreed upon definition." You seem to be ignoring religious and theological diversity to suit your own goals and agendas, which is at best disingenuous. At the very least, you're projecting your ideas about what god(s) are onto theists who are straight up telling you that's not how they understand their god(s).

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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!

Yep I agree.
That topic is part of what I see as the age old irony in the Abrahamic religions - but it's very much strongly part of the continuity of narrative itself - where the religion comes along with it's founding Prophet(s) to stop various forms of oppression, then at some point the wrong hands take power and it's status quo turns to upholding the very things the Prophets themselves revolted against.
It's definitely not a coincidence from an Abrahamic POV.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are not that good at English. Curing disease is useful for humans. You left out that something useful, is useful to somebody.

I considered it a given that I was talking about humans. Who else would I have been talking about?

That is what makes it subjective.

No.

Now that objectivity is useful to you is subjective. If I asked you for evidence for it being useful, you couldn't observe it, because you don't see it.

I gave you examples.

You experience it in your mind first person subjectively as useful.

So do you. Electro-magnetism and all that jazz sure is usefull for us to have this conversation.
Would we be having it otherwise? No. So...pretty usefull.

You really need to learn to understand better how the world works, if you want to claim that you understand it. You don't even know that useful it is subjective.

You need to stop pretending that objective and subjective are the same thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again with useful being objective

It is. If curing from a desease is the goal, then medical science is objectively more usefull to achieve that goal then praying is.

You can continue to argue this point if you want, but I don't really see the point in denying the obvious.

What does it look like, how do you measure it using a scientific measurement standard, what instrument do you use?

The standard of "tools and technology allowing you to succesfully accomplishing your goals".

If you wish to build a plane, you'll only achieve that goal by underpinning it with explanatory models of science.
Not by praying for it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You have changed the goal post.

I most certainly did not. I'm making the exact same point as in the previous post to which you simply replied with the non-explanatory one-liner saying "yeah...funny".

I'm just trying to get you to expand a bit and actually address the point raised.

My statement was that God did and does try to reach people. How they respond is varied.

Is this your way of saying that god then "tried" to send his message to all independent cultures over the course of history and only a single tribe in judea managed to properly understand it?
If yes, then what does it say about god and his omnipotence, as well as his sincerity, that people managed to understand it in vastly incompatible ways instead?

How does his monotheistic christian message result in the understanding of the norse religion of whalhalla, for example? The principles of that religion are EXTREMELY different from christianity. For starters, it's polytheistic. And plenty of customs and vaues therein, are VASTLY different from what you'll find in the bible.

Do you really wish to claim that this is simply due to "some misunderstanding on their part"?
That doesn't sound very plausible, now does it....

Now, if every culture in the world would rather represent a denomination of christianity with difference more similar to protestantism and catholicism - then you'ld have a point.

But when the difference between religion sare SO vast and major... The argument of "it's the same god and the same massage, just a misunderstanding on the part of those who are the target of the message" doesn't hold up as the differences are far to huge to be explained away with some mere "misunderstanding".

Nore does this address the point made that it's also entirely implausible that not a single other culture managed to understand this "message" in even only remotely the same way.

The entire issue I raised, thus remains completely unaddressed

I think there is a beginning point and all points deviate from than one truth.

Which would be a plausible point if all religions of the world were a version or variation of christianity. But that isn't the case at all. Worse even, the christian religions, even abrahamic religion in general, are NOT the oldest religions either. So that argument doesn't hold up either. It would predict that the oldest religion would be the most "correct" then. But the oldest religions aren't even monotheistic and existed long before abrahamic religion....

So this argument doesn't hold up either.

Like most religions talk about a flood, there is always a strain of truth.

Different floods at different times - and by far not as many have such a tale as you would like to believe.

Curiously (not really), the cultures that have such myths and legends in their religion or history, are all cultures that lived near large bodies of water....

The stories themselves (as to the cause of those floods and the circumstances) also don't match up at all. Except for the Epic of Gilgamesh, which is clearly where the old testament borrowed the tale from. Ironically, that makes the OT story a "deviation" as you called it from the "one correct religion".

But God is merciful and gracious in and through it all

Not really, since he, if he is the christian god and your bare declarations here are accurate, is going to punish all those people with eternal torment because he failed at communicating properly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, we don't. You are speaking solely for yourself here.

When a god is defined as being omnipotent, then that is exactly what it means: to be able to do anything they want.

The overwhelming majority of gods humans have honored throughout history are not able to do "anything they want."

But he is refering to the god of abraham. He's not referring to "any" god.

True, but it's not even remotely a "universally agreed upon definition."

It is, when it concerns the god of abraham.

You seem to be ignoring religious and theological diversity to suit your own goals and agendas, which is at best disingenuous.

He isn't, as he's talking from the perspective of the god of abraham and how it relates, or what it's implications are, to the many other religions.

At the very least, you're projecting your ideas about what god(s) are onto theists who are straight up telling you that's not how they understand their god(s).

No. He's just adopting the general description / definition of the god of abraham.

 

[Ponder This]

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?

One might say that it is a-Paul-ing? Sorry (not sorry).

I think that if we look at the Bible as a whole, we find that God appears to have favorites. For example, God is pleased by Able's offering but not Cain's offering. And while it is not clear to us why God favors one over another, it is also clear that the fundamental issue is the people themselves - not God. So characterizing the situation as God struggling to bring His knowledge to the people is really a misunderstanding of what the Bible conveys as a whole. Rather it is people who struggle to obtain the knowledge and favor of God.

It really helps to view everything that Paul writes as the writings of a man trying to understand God rather than as someone speaking on behalf of God. Is Paul the Messiah? Is he even a Prophet? No. He is an Apostle. A Prophet speaks through divine inspiration. An Apostle is a missionary or leader of a religious mission. And in Paul's case, his mission was to bring the Gospel ("Good News") to others. So while Paul's writings are important, Paul's writings have to be understood in terms of who Paul is.