How would your account be different?

[Inigo Montoya]

I've been tossing around the question as to why it is we believe written accounts of officers or soldiers in past wars, or why we believe the stories of famous men and women throughout history prior to the advent of cameras and film.


For the sake of argument, I'd ask you -- IF you were witness to the life and death of Jesus in the first century, and we assume the miracles and resurrection are true, how do YOU record your accounting of it in such a way it is believed in future generations?

Is this possible? Do we believe the events of the War of 1812 took place the way they did because there's no mention of supernatural occurrences?

If we assume for discussion the events in the gospels actually occurred, how would you have captured them in such a way as to stand up to future scrutiny?

[PhiloKGB]

The question becomes when does the involvement become enough to limit free will?

I'd say never. God is expected to make sure the information is correct, not that everyone believes it.

What it sounds like is Jax, and correct me if I am wrong, is removing faith altogether from whatever you would call this by just dropping a new version every say 200 years. This is now just a history book that is updated to the current vocabulary. Also the amount of involvement this new god has would not matter unless he/she intended on forcing people to understand the meaning behind what was written. You would still wind up with more than one interpretation. Without this god simply forcing everyone to understand it the same way you would still get what you have today.

That's an interesting point. I'd have to say, however, that multiple sequential editions, however imperfect owing to human interpretation, would be better than one edition provided to one culture one time.

[Jax Agnesson]

The question becomes when does the involvement become enough to limit free will? What it sounds like is Jax, and correct me if I am wrong, is removing faith altogether from whatever you would call this by just dropping a new version every say 200 years.

Not at all, Charles. I'm simply not assuming God is as simple-minded as we transient, limited humans. An omniscient, all-wise, all-powerful God could achieve anything that isn't a logical impossibility. Getting a message across to us in a form that ensures that we can agree its meaning in all the main points without losing our power to choose our actions might be a very difficult problem for a modified monkey with a life expectancy of a few decades, but it's surely not impossible even for the likes of us. A group comprising 30 or so students from the faculties of law, ethics, psychology, linguistics and diplomacy could probably come up with a workable, if imperfect, draft solution in a couple of years, don't you think? An immortal, infinitely wise God could achieve the perfect solution in an eye-blink, if He wanted to. Or don't you believe He's smart enough?

This is now just a history book that is updated to the current vocabulary. Also the amount of involvement this new god . ..

What is new about this God, Charles? He is assumed to be eternal, omniscient omnipotent, and deeply caring about the fate of humanity. In what way is this different from your own God?

. . . has would not matter unless he/she intended on forcing people to understand the meaning behind what was written. You would still wind up with more than one interpretation. Without this god simply forcing everyone to understand it the same way you would still get what you have today.

A rich, meaningful message, designed to be understood in all its main points by most people of good will in each given cultural/geographic/historical set, but not infringing on personal responsibility for our choices, would be beyond Almighty God, you reckon? An ancient, disputed set of improbable tales about talking donkeys and warnings about not eating shellfish is the best you think He could manage? Oh, ye of little faith!

[charles_hamm]

The question becomes when does the involvement become enough to limit free will? What it sounds like is Jax, and correct me if I am wrong, is removing faith altogether from whatever you would call this by just dropping a new version every say 200 years.

Not at all, Charles. I'm simply not assuming God is as simple-minded as we transient, limited humans. An omniscient, all-wise, all-powerful God could achieve anything that isn't a logical impossibility. Getting a message across to us in a form that ensures that we can agree its meaning in all the main ponts without losing our power to choose our actions is a very difficult problem for a modified monkey with a life expectancy of a few decades, but it's surely not impossible even for the likes of us. A group comprising 30 or so students from the faculties of law, ethics, psychology, linguistics and diplomacy could probably come up with a workable, if imperfect, solution in a couple of years, don't you think? An immortal, infinitely wise God could achieve the perfect solution in an eye-blink, if He wanted to. Or don't you believe He's smart enough?

This is now just a history book that is updated to the current vocabulary. Also the amount of involvement this new god has would not matter unless he/she intended on forcing people to understand the meaning behind what was written. You would still wind up with more than one interpretation. Without this god simply forcing everyone to understand it the same way you would still get what you have today.

A rich, meaningful message, designed to be understood in all its main points by most people of good will in each given cultural/geographic/historical set, but not infringing on personal responsibility for our choices, would be beyond Almighty God, you reckon? An ancient, disputed set of improbable tales about talking donkeys and warnings about not eating shellfish is the best you think He could manage? Oh, ye of little faith!

I guess the real question here is if there were accounts of talking donkeys and such in the very first book you wrote, how would you update that to make it believable now without changing the meaning?

[Jax Agnesson]

[quote="charles_hamm
I guess the real question here is if there were accounts of talking donkeys and such in the very first book you wrote, how would you update that to make it believable now without changing the meaning?[/quote]
Yes, that's a problem with ancient human literature.. We humans start out not knowing much about life or art, and our early attempts are likely to be not too good. But an Almighty God wouldn't start off telling tales about talking donkeys, and commanding floods and genocides, unless that's really what he intended. And if it was what He intended, He wouldn't change his mind a few eye-blinks later, would He?
If I thought an eternal, all-wise, all-knowing Father existed, I would expect Him to at least have the ability to deal with our crudity, cruelty, stupidity etc without pandering to it! He would be able to say clearly 'Don't sacrifice your children; don't commit genocide in my name'; or else 'Yes, thou shalt commit genocide as and when I require it, but go easy on the shellfish'; or whatever, but I would expect something we could all consider basically comprehensible, without killing each other over the interpretations.
OTOH, if JHWH really is the war-god, then maybe that's precisely what He wants. In which case, I would have to concede, He's achieved His aim wonderfully.

[dbohm]

So if I understand you correctly the only "updates" you would make are to speak in the language of the day? If the message never changed , which is what you imply in your comment regarding 3000 B.C. or 3000 A.D. and you believe men are smart enough to translate dead languages then why update it? What you've just described is the Bible. The only change you made was using the language of the day rather then staying with the original (which causes it's own problems since words have multiple meanings based on their usage).

Do you believe that God hears all those people praying in all their different languages in all the Christian churches and homes on Sunday all round the world?
Do you believe God has been the same, unchanging, since before time was?
OK.
So. This almighty God, who looks upon the stumbling changes of mortals across the whole planet through many millenia, knows how to speak to each of these people-groups, in their own language, in the times and places where they live. He knows perfectly how to say whatever He wants to say, in words they will understand clearly. But He doesn't do that, does He?
And He doesn't change, does He? His message doesn't change, does it? If He thinks the indiscriminate slaughtering of every man woman and child in a town is wrong, He would have been able to communicate that in 3000 BC in Canaa just as easily as He could have communicated it in Poland in 1943 CE.
And He didn't, did He?
Do you believe that this almighty God was able to hear the prayers of all those people, all over the world, who thought the Great Creator Spirit would be pleased by the blood sacrifice of their children? Didn't He know about them? Or didn't He care?
He could have sent signs to the Aztec and the ancient Greek, as he did to Abram, saying it's OK, you don't need to do that; a small animal will suffice. Couldn't He?
And He didn't, did He?
Imagine yourself in the position of an omnipotent omniscient and loving God. Imagine that you have an important mesage for humanity that you really want to communicate to them. Imagine you knew that they will suffer terribly until they come ro understand this message.
How would you go about it? Scraps of confused tales of genocides and crucifyings, on scrolls that are prone to getting lost, miscopied, forged, in obscure, outdated and nearly-lost languages? Would you really leave most of the people on the planet out of access to any of this stuff, for thousands of years, even though you knew they were sacrificing their own children in a desperate attempt to communicate with you?
Personally, I reckon I, with all my limitations, could do a much better job than He supposedly has.. Couldn't you?
My conclusion, on the matter of communicating God's word: If an omnipotent, omniscient loving God wanted to commmunicate something important to us, He would have done a good job of it. And He hasn't. Therefore, if such a creature exists, He doesn't actually want to communicate anything to us.

Yes but if you believe worldwide statistics, some 2 and a half billion people have understood and accepted Christianity. Not bad for a bunch of unimportant followers whose leader got killed 2000 years ago.

The evidence isn't compelling enough for you but it is for one third of humankind. There are probably more people who believe in Jesus than the Big Bang Theory even though there is very strong proof for that theory.

[charles_hamm]

[quote="charles_hamm
I guess the real question here is if there were accounts of talking donkeys and such in the very first book you wrote, how would you update that to make it believable now without changing the meaning?

Yes, that's a problem with ancient human literature.. We humans start out not knowing much about life or art, and our early attempts are likely to be not too good. But an Almighty God wouldn't start off telling tales about talking donkeys, and commanding floods and genocides, unless that's really what he intended. And if it was what He intended, He wouldn't change his mind a few eye-blinks later, would He?
If I thought an eternal, all-wise, all-knowing Father existed, I would expect Him to at least have the ability to deal with our crudity, cruelty, stupidity etc without pandering to it! He would be able to say clearly 'Don't sacrifice your children; don't commit genocide in my name'; or else 'Yes, thou shalt commit genocide as and when I require it, but go easy on the shellfish'; or whatever, but I would expect something we could all consider basically comprehensible, without killing each other over the interpretations.
OTOH, if JHWH really is the war-god, then maybe that's precisely what He wants. In which case, I would have to concede, He's achieved His aim wonderfully.[/quote]

I believe you missed my point. If the account of the talking donkey is accurate and true, how do write it today so that it is believable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Yes but if you believe worldwide statistics, some 2 and a half billion people have understood and accepted Christianity. Not bad for a bunch of unimportant followers whose leader got killed 2000 years ago.

The evidence isn't compelling enough for you but it is for one third of humankind. There are probably more people who believe in Jesus than the Big Bang Theory even though there is very strong proof for that theory.

This would appear to be a fallacious appeal to popularity. Whether or not something is supported by evidence is not determined democratically.

[dbohm]

Yes but if you believe worldwide statistics, some 2 and a half billion people have understood and accepted Christianity. Not bad for a bunch of unimportant followers whose leader got killed 2000 years ago.

The evidence isn't compelling enough for you but it is for one third of humankind. There are probably more people who believe in Jesus than the Big Bang Theory even though there is very strong proof for that theory.

This would appear to be a fallacious appeal to popularity. Whether or not something is supported by evidence is not determined democratically.

I'm not at all suggesting popularity is evidence of truth. Just because lots of believe something doesn't make it true. I'm responding to the charge that the method of transmission was poor and inadequate. One third of the world thinks otherwise.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I'm not at all suggesting popularity is evidence of truth. Just because lots of believe something doesn't make it true. I'm responding to the charge that the method of transmission was poor and inadequate. One third of the world thinks otherwise.

And how is that not a fallacious appeal to popularity? Rather than responding to all the inadequacies that have already been pointed out in this thread, you're just pointing out that a lot of people believe the message anyway. That doesn't make all the inadequacies disappear.

[dbohm]

I'm not at all suggesting popularity is evidence of truth. Just because lots of believe something doesn't make it true. I'm responding to the charge that the method of transmission was poor and inadequate. One third of the world thinks otherwise.

And how is that not a fallacious appeal to popularity? Rather than responding to all the inadequacies that have already been pointed out in this thread, you're just pointing out that a lot of people believe the message anyway. That doesn't make all the inadequacies disappear.

But the point is that they are only inadequacies to some people. What some posters on this thread seem to be arguing is that there is some obligation on God to make it compelling to everybody.