The 'I believe in one less god than you' schtick.

[ippy]

That's not what I am asking. I've previously indicated why I think different cultures and societies may independently have come up with the idea of a god - both from 'god of the gaps' and to cement social cohesion/rules and us/them dominance. See reply 52.

I'm not talking about societies coming up with the notion of god - I'm talking about religions. Most religions claim they are both true and divinely inspired - so if the latter why can't god directly teach remote people's about that religion - why is transmission solely vie humans. Why has no christian missionary stumbled across a previously unconnected tribe and discovered they already know about Jesus. Never happens, but is should do if these religions are divinely inspired as the divine could just as easily inspire a remote tribe with the 'truth' of this religion.

Reminds me of the Catholics they seem to be prone to having visions of various religious figures etc, but you never hear of a catholic having a vision of Mohamed or anything remotely connected to the Islamic religion or any other religion, funny that?

This certainly fits in with this post of yours Proff.

Oh yes and by the way you'll never make any progress with Vlad, he just keeps on changing the subject when faced with another one of the many questions he knows he can't answer, even then he still doesn't answer anything with a somewhere near relevant comment, you always end up chasing your tail when attempting to have a sensible exchange with Vlad, no matter what direction you chose to come at him from.

Regards Proff, ippy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Reminds me of the Catholics they seem to be prone to having visions of various religious figures etc, but you never hear of a catholic having a vision of Mohamed or anything remotely connected to the Islamic religion or any other religion, funny that?

That's right - but even more so as I guess in this context most catholics would be aware that islam and Mohamed exist, yet they still don't have visions of Mohamed and vice versa.

I'm going further - if god can talk directly to people, then surely he can talk directly to any person. And if this god is the christian god and sent his son ... etc etc etc, why on earth wouldn't he have directly told 1stC tribes in the Amazon of this fantastic 'good news' so that when this tribe is 'found' by western explorers they already know the story of Jesus. But of course it never happens - Christianity and other religions are only ever transmitted by people, never directly by god.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I did in reply 52 - to repeat (in response to question as to where belief in god and religion may have come from):

'As a consequence of the evolutionary benefits of human higher conscious neurobiology and a highly developed social structure, which is evolutionarily essential for animals that take many years to develop to the point of independence.

So humans have a highly inquisitive nature (as this is evolutionarily advantageous) - hence arises the god of the gaps. Things early human societies did not understand so not unreasonably (although wrongly) ascribed to some great power, i.e. a god.

Secondly highly developed social structures require rules and customs to make them run and to perpetuate them from generation to generation. Again a 'god' which agrees with the social norms of the group is great to create. It helps keep the minions in check (these aren't our rules, they are god's rule and you know what he does when he's angry - yup you remember that earthquake last week), and also allows a sense of belonging to develop - we have the one true god on our side, that tribe over there doesn't - we are better, safer, more worthy than they are - stick with us. And the structures and societal norms are perpetuated via customs and rituals - and so begins religion.'

Religion is not restricted to being a failed science since natural forces are sanctified within paganism and panentheistic ideas so The accusation of God of the gaps is misplaced. That is also so in the idea of God as creator.

In terms of being a means of keeping order and preserving societies........is that a)always true and b) always a bad thing. Religion can and does challenge societies, cultures, regimes and hegemonies. Rather than existing to preserve these it actually survives them instead

[ProfessorDavey]

Religion is not restricted to being a failed science since natural forces are sanctified within paganism and panentheistic ideas so The accusation of God of the gaps is misplaced. That is also so in the idea of God as creator.

In terms of being a means of keeping order and preserving societies........is that a)always true and b) always a bad thing. Religion can and does challenge societies, cultures, regimes and hegemonies. Rather than existing to preserve these it actually survives them instead

Until or unless theists can actually come up with evidence that god actually exists then I think better to expend our energy trying to understand the reasons why societies have come to develop the notion of god and religions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Until or unless theists can actually come up with evidence that god actually exists then I think better to expend our energy trying to understand the reasons why societies have come to develop the notion of god and religions.

Since religions survive societies and can be cross cultural that would suggest that they are not just a function of society or a tool of a society. That challenges the ultimate efficacy of a societal explanation of them.

Better bet might be anthropology and neurology but then again.

[ProfessorDavey]

Since religions survive societies and can be cross cultural that would suggest that they are not just a function of society or a tool of a society. That challenges the ultimate efficacy of a societal explanation of them.

Do they? i think the basic tenets of human societies are much more enduring than any individual religion.

Better bet might be anthropology and neurology but then again.

Which is what I was doing.

[ippy]

That's right - but even more so as I guess in this context most catholics would be aware that islam and Mohamed exist, yet they still don't have visions of Mohamed and vice versa.

I'm going further - if god can talk directly to people, then surely he can talk directly to any person. And if this god is the christian god and sent his son ... etc etc etc, why on earth wouldn't he have directly told 1stC tribes in the Amazon of this fantastic 'good news' so that when this tribe is 'found' by western explorers they already know the story of Jesus. But of course it never happens - Christianity and other religions are only ever transmitted by people, never directly by god.

Well yes and we don't need to look for the evidence, can you imagine the world wide furore in and on every single minutest part of the media if viable evidence was found for any one of the various religions?

Or perhaps whichever one found or had the necessary evidence might want to keep it to themselves?

Regards Proff, ippy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well yes and we don't need to look for the evidence, can you imagine the world wide furore in and on every single minutest part of the media if viable evidence was found for any one of the various religions?

I suppose your thinking in terms of finding God’s toenail or something.

What’s to stop any evidence being attributed to an alien.

[ippy]

I suppose your thinking in terms of finding God’s toenail or something.

What’s to stop any evidence being attributed to an alien.

You must know I didn't specify anything in particular only viable evidence, why do you think there is any way around viable evidence, when there isn't?

Vladolocks!

[ProfessorDavey]

Weird how these 'world religions' only ever seem to be transmitted to new believers, who've never previously encounter the religion, via other people - never via god directly. It is almost as if god doesn't actually exist

Let's imagine there is life on another planet of equal intelligence etc to humans - if god is omnipresent then they are just as much his 'creation' as humans are. Why would god wait to communicate his message until humans develop to technology to communicate with those people. Why doesn't he just tell them directly. He seems to be constantly chatting to folk in the bible - why is he so reticent to chat to folk directly in other parts of the world who hadn't yet encountered judeo-christianity - why does he wait for current believers to find them to transmit his message.

Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes - e.g. in the Amazon, who may have not encountered outside societies until the last few decades and will have no knowledge of the existence of christianity or the christian god. Given that christianity seems based on accepting Jesus for salvation it seems a bit unfair on countless generations of this tribe over 2000 years who haven't had the opportunity to accept Jesus, as they've never known of his existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

Let's also make an assumption that the christian god exists - what on earth is he playing at! Why has he failed to reveal himself to these people for 2000 years. Well here are some options:

1. He has stopped being chatty - in other words directly engaging with people. Well sure the level of direct chattiness seems to peak in the old testament, but perhaps declines in the new testament (except through the extreme direct chattiness of Jesus). But this doesn't really cut it as over those centuries there are countless claimed encounters with god, Jesus, Mary etc so why not to these uncontacted people?

2. He has revealed himself but these people failed to recognise who he is - well firstly the christian encounters seem pretty explicit so why not these encounters. Also why would god make it so tricky to recognise himself.

3. He has revealed himself but does so differently depending on the audience - so to christians reveals himself as Jesus, but to Hindus as Vishnu, to Amazonians as a jaguar etc. Well this would all be very PC and culturally appropriate but there are two problems for christians. First this would mean god is just a follower, rather than a leader - merely aligning himself with eh cultural norm - being a fervent Arsenal fan when on the Holloway Road, but the most earnest Toon fan when in Newcastle. That doesn't sound very god like. But more significantly if all gods are just the same god revealed differently then that means the notion of Jesus is no more important than any of the other revealed forms - Jesus is only important to his judeo-christian identity and no more important than his jaguar identity to the Amazonian people. So there is no universal importance of Jesus.

4. God only reveals himself to some people - he has favourites. Well this fits with the original jewish notion of god but doesn't align with the christian god being the god of everyone. Also doesn't seem very beneficent if he only allow some people to gain the knowledge necessary for salvation.

5. The christian god doesn't like traveling so stays close to Mediterranean/Europe - doesn't seem very god-like. And while he seems absent from everywhere else until christians get there he seems happy to travel to, and reveal himself to people in far flung parts of the world once christians have been there and told the locals about the christian god and asked/forced them to worship him.

Frankly none of these possible scenarios, if the christian god exists as suggested, seem very plausible.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes

How can you get into the perspective of someone who hasn't been contacted.
Can someone who drinks bottled water really effectively do this?

[ProfessorDavey]

How can you get into the perspective of someone who hasn't been contacted.
Can someone who drinks bottled water really effectively do this?

Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.

Now address the question - which is effectively about why the christian god, if he exists, would fail to make meaningful contact with loads of people throughout the world for centuries. Which of my explanations is most plausible or palatable to you - none seems particularly palatable if you a christian who believes that the christian god is the one true god, is all powerful, the god of everyone, is a loving god and that salvation is only possible through Jesus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If these uncontacted South American tribes needed information...…

…….couldn't they get it on Amazon?

[ProfessorDavey]

If these uncontacted South American tribes needed information...…

…….couldn't they get it on Amazon?

Oh look .... squirrel

Diversionary evasion noted.

Now address the issue please.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Classic Vlad diversionary tactic.

Now address the question - which is effectively about why the christian god, if he exists, would fail to make meaningful contact with loads of people throughout the world for centuries. Which of my explanations is most plausible or palatable to you - none seems particularly palatable if you a christian who believes that the christian god is the one true god, is all powerful, the god of everyone, is a loving god and that salvation is only possible through Jesus.

I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people. I don’t agree with your designation of him as the Christian god.
What you mean by meaningful contact is your opinion. Your argument is very much along the lines of ''if God existed he would........'' (complete as applicable to your own opinions)
If there is evasion it’s you not facing up to uncontacted people having a spiritual aspect to themselves and their societies rather than a much vaunted default atheism.

What we should also remember is that the Christian declaration is that God dealt meaningfully with people before Jesus' mission which is a ''one of'' mission but good for all people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Let's think this through a little more and from the perspective of uncontacted tribes - e.g. in the Amazon, who may have not encountered outside societies until the last few decades and will have no knowledge of the existence of christianity or the christian god. Given that christianity seems based on accepting Jesus for salvation it seems a bit unfair on countless generations of this tribe over 2000 years who haven't had the opportunity to accept Jesus, as they've never known of his existence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples

Let's also make an assumption that the christian god exists - what on earth is he playing at! Why has he failed to reveal himself to these people for 2000 years. Well here are some options:

1. He has stopped being chatty - in other words directly engaging with people. Well sure the level of direct chattiness seems to peak in the old testament, but perhaps declines in the new testament (except through the extreme direct chattiness of Jesus). But this doesn't really cut it as over those centuries there are countless claimed encounters with god, Jesus, Mary etc so why not to these uncontacted people?

If one goes with your understanding of acceptance of Christ I think you have to follow the logic of that namely if one actually hasn't had the opportunity to properly accept Christ then by the same token one hasn't actually had the opportunity to properly reject Christ.

I would argue that there are fewer encounters portrayed in the OT than you are making out.
The paragraph you write can therefore be described as mocking caricature.

2. He has revealed himself but these people failed to recognise who he is

My sympathies are more with this interpretation since there are those who don't fail to finally recognise him when exposed to the Gospel

- well firstly the christian encounters seem pretty explicit so why not these encounters. Also why would god make it so tricky to recognise himself.

again since some finally do recognise him as their ultimate goal the answer may lie with the person or society in question.

3. He has revealed himself but does so differently depending on the audience - so to christians reveals himself as Jesus, but to Hindus as Vishnu, to Amazonians as a jaguar etc. Well this would all be very PC and culturally appropriate but there are two problems for christians. First this would mean god is just a follower, rather than a leader - merely aligning himself with eh cultural norm - being a fervent Arsenal fan when on the Holloway Road, but the most earnest Toon fan when in Newcastle. That doesn't sound very god like. But more significantly if all gods are just the same god revealed differently then that means the notion of Jesus is no more important than any of the other revealed forms - Jesus is only important to his judeo-christian identity and no more important than his jaguar identity to the Amazonian people. So there is no universal importance of Jesus.

I think it might be a question of interpretation. Do Hindus view Krishna like Christians view Jesus? Not sure on that one.

4. God only reveals himself to some people - he has favourites. Well this fits with the original jewish notion of god but doesn't align with the christian god being the god of everyone. Also doesn't seem very beneficent if he only allow some people to gain the knowledge necessary for salvation.


5. The christian god doesn't like traveling so stays close to Mediterranean/Europe - doesn't seem very god-like. And while he seems absent from everywhere else until christians get there he seems happy to travel to, and reveal himself to people in far flung parts of the world once christians have been there and told the locals about the christian god and asked/forced them to worship him.

Again a bit of a caricature.

Intriguing passages in NT about Jesus and judgment.
All recognise him at judgment as Lord but some cannot place where they have met him and why he welcomes them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You must know I didn't specify anything in particular?

Well hopefully you'll get round to it one day.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people.

Really what about the approx. 40 generations of people living from the time of Jesus through to about 1300 in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa. These people had no interaction with christians coming from Europe etc and when those people eventually arrived had no knowledge of what christianity. Seem to me that the christian god pretty effectively failed to make meaningful contact with all those people.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really

Yes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really what about the approx. 40 generations of people living from the time of Jesus through to about 1300 in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa.

What about the people God was having meaningful contact with in the bible prior to Christ?

[ProfessorDavey]

What about the people God was having meaningful contact with in the bible prior to Christ?

When in a hole, best to stop digging.

I was talking about all the people he hadn't made meaningful contact with, not those he had. And of course people in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa had no meaningful contact with the judeo-christian god from the team those peoples emerged tens of thousands of years ago through to the point when christian missionaries made contact from about 1300 onwards.

So that is probably most people throughout most of history.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

When in a hole, best to stop digging.

I was talking about all the people he hadn't made meaningful contact with, not those he had. And of course people in the Americas, in Australia and the Pacific, in South East Asia, in sub-Saharan Africa had no meaningful contact with the judeo-christian god from the team those peoples emerged tens of thousands of years ago through to the point when christian missionaries made contact from about 1300 onwards.

So that is probably most people throughout most of history.

I'm not in a hole. The take out message from the OT theology is that God was having meaningful contact with people before Jesus arrives in history. This includes Monotheists of differing stripes, Henotheists who believed Yahweh was one of many Gods and Egyptians who had a pantheon.

So this blows your thesis somewhat.

[jeremyp]

I think you are projecting your own approach of confusing ridicule with disagreement there Jeremy.

Don't think so. I don't use long words ending in "ism" that I don't understand.

[jeremyp]

I don’t agree that God has failed to make meaningful contact with loads of people. I don’t agree with your designation of him as the Christian god.

How do you explain then how Hindus have a completely different religion to you. If it's the same god making contact with you and them, Wouldn't your perceptions of what God is like be similar? Wouldn't your religions be similar?

[jeremyp]

I'm not in a hole.

Yes you are.

The take out message from the OT theology is that God was having meaningful contact with people before Jesus arrives in history. This includes Monotheists of differing stripes, Henotheists who believed Yahweh was one of many Gods and Egyptians who had a pantheon.

So this blows your thesis somewhat.

Why did some people have a pantheon and some only have one god? If God is real (or gods are real) shouldn't the various religions at least agree on how many there are?

Also, how come the Jews didn't notice that God has a head shaped like that of an elephant (or conversely, why did Hindus falsely believe that one of their gods had a head shaped like that of an elephant)?

With all the billions of people who ever lived, only one small geographically focused group of people came up with the concept of Christianity without hearing it from other people who were already Christians.