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?

[dbohm]

[Replying to post 40 by dbohm]

There is also another point to be made - namely what would be compelling evidence to Jax may not at all be compelling to me. I might agree that the evidence provided showed a very powerful being perhaps an angel or demon but not necessarily God.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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.

The arguments are more along the lines of: if God wants to share his message with everyone, he is clearly doing an inadequate job. If God doesn't want to share his message with everyone, then the present state of affairs on earth would alternately suggest that he is accomplishing his goal fairly well. But most of the arguments seem to focus on an omnipotent God who wants to communicate with humanity, and we are lacking in logical reasons as to why an omnipotent God would fail to achieve his goal.

Your appeal to popularity doesn't address this. Just because billions of people think they have good reasons to believe something doesn't mean they actually have good reasons. Perhaps the message isn't compelling and the popularity is simply a result of human gullibility.

There is also another point to be made - namely what would be compelling evidence to Jax may not at all be compelling to me. I might agree that the evidence provided showed a very powerful being perhaps an angel or demon but not necessarily God.

Hence the need to focus on logical argument rather than subjective feelings. "The message is compelling to me" is a statement of personal preference, it isn't an argument as to why the message is actually compelling.

[PhiloKGB]

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.

That's kind of an unfair criticism. Since God is literally responsible for the whole system, technically he's under no obligations whatsoever. However, we're told both that God wants everyone to come to believe rightly and that no one can do so without God's help. If that's so, who else could possibly have a greater obligation, especially when the source material is so far removed from modern humanity?

[PhiloKGB]

There is also another point to be made - namely what would be compelling evidence to Jax may not at all be compelling to me. I might agree that the evidence provided showed a very powerful being perhaps an angel or demon but not necessarily God.

How do you justify this? Does God love some people more than others? Does God just randomly throw evidence around, and whoever is capable of belief gets lucky?

[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?

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.

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?

OK. Fair question, Charles.
Let us consider the options
a: that the tale of Balaam's ass is true. and
b: that's it's intended as an amusing allegorical tale.
If the first, then I would repeat the same story, event for event, in every updating and translation. If people failed to believe it, that would be their choice, in your philosophy, wouldn't it? If it was intended as allegory, then I might replace the donkey-story with other imagery, perhaps more immediately vivid to the culture a particular edition was addressing, but clearly pointing the same message. (which is, AFAICS, that wise men sometimes can't see things that even a donkey can see.)

But the main thrust of my argument is about an omnipotent being and His apparent difficulty in communicating with the creatures He designed.
Remembering my childhood catechism;
Question 2: Why Did God make you?
Answer: God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.
This would imply that God wanted to give me the option (at least) of behaving in ways that would enable me to do what He wants of me. Which would, logically, mean that He wants me to know how I should behave in order to be 'happy with Him forever in the next (world)..
But He is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, according to the Christian theology. Why would He not be able to communicate this important informstion to us with clarity, whilst leaving us some freedom to choose?
What attempts has He made so far?

Let's go with the fundie assumption that we were created 6000 years ago, and since then God has become so frustrated with His creatures not being able to follow His communications, that He has wiped most of us out and started again. He has rained down fire and brimstone on at least two cities, killing everyone therein. He has sent one tribe into a piece of land and ordered them to destroy every man woman and child in that place. He has sent His very own son down to Earth to die a really grotesque death, specifically to get some message across to us. And after six thousand years of this kind of thing, how successful has He been?
Well, about one third of us think the message of Jesus was broadly right, though we have several thousand interpretations, contradictory in many points, and we have committed slaughters over these interpretations;
about one third of us think the message of Mohammed was right, but Sunni, Shia, and Alawite are as prepared as earlier Christians were to slaughter each other over the detail;
and the other third don't really know very much about either of the 'Great Faiths' and even less about their progenitor Judaism.
I repeat my question; Does this look to you like an omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise and loving Creator has been trying to get some kind of message across to the beings He created?
I feel I must raise another point here, related in particular to the Christian idea that God is loving and just.

Suppose you created some means of communication, (tin-cans with string, cat's whisker radio, smoke signalling, whatever). Further suppose that you taught this method to a fourth-grade science class. Then you try to send them a message, and they can't understand it. Do you blame the kids? Only a really lousy teacher would blame the kids for not learning the lesson he was supposed to teach them.
If God actually created us, He decided what kind of brains, what kind of minds, what level of understanding we would be capable of. (ie, He designed the apparatus of communication.) He decided to send us a message. After at least six thousand years of trying, He has failed to reach at least two thirds of us. And He will send us to Hell for not getting it.
Is this really what you believe?

[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.

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?

OK. Fair question, Charles.
Let us consider the options
a: that the tale of Balaam's ass is true. and
b: that's it's intended as an amusing allegorical tale.
If the first, then I would repeat the same story, event for event, in every updating and translation. If people failed to believe it, that would be their choice, in your philosophy, wouldn't it? If it was intended as allegory, then I might replace the donkey-story with other imagery, perhaps more immediately vivid to the culture a particular edition was addressing, but clearly pointing the same message. (which is, AFAICS, that wise men sometimes can't see things that even a donkey can see.)

But the main thrust of my argument is about an omnipotent being and His apparent difficulty in communicating with the creatures He designed.
Remembering my childhood catechism;
Question 2: Why Did God make you?
Answer: God made me to know Him, love Him and serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in the next.
This would imply that God wanted to give me the option (at least) of behaving in ways that would enable me to do what He wants of me. Which would, logically, mean that He wants me to know how I should behave in order to be 'happy with Him forever in the next (world)..
But He is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, according to the Christian theology. Why would He not be able to communicate this important informstion to us with clarity, whilst leaving us some freedom to choose?
What attempts has He made so far?

Let's go with the fundie assumption that we were created 6000 years ago, and since then God has become so frustrated with His creatures not being able to follow His communications, that He has wiped most of us out and started again. He has rained down fire and brimstone on at least two cities, killing everyone therein. He has sent one tribe into a piece of land and ordered them to destroy every man woman and child in that place. He has sent His very own son down to Earth to die a really grotesque death, specifically to get some message across to us. And after six thousand years of this kind of thing, how successful has He been?
Well, about one third of us think the message of Jesus was broadly right, though we have several thousand interpretations, contradictory in many points, and we have committed slaughters over these interpretations;
about one third of us think the message of Mohammed was right, but Sunni, Shia, and Alawite are as prepared as earlier Christians were to slaughter each other over the detail;
and the other third don't really know very much about either of the 'Great Faiths' and even less about their progenitor Judaism.
I repeat my question; Does this look to you like an omnipotent, omniscient, all-wise and loving Creator has been trying to get some kind of message across to the beings He created?
I feel I must raise another point here, related in particular to the Christian idea that God is loving and just.

Suppose you created some means of communication, (tin-cans with string, cat's whisker radio, smoke signalling, whatever). Further suppose that you taught this method to a fourth-grade science class. Then you try to send them a message, and they can't understand it. Do you blame the kids? Only a really lousy teacher would blame the kids for not learning the lesson he was supposed to teach them.
If God actually created us, He decided what kind of brains, what kind of minds, what level of understanding we would be capable of. (ie, He designed the apparatus of communication.) He decided to send us a message. After at least six thousand years of trying, He has failed to reach at least two thirds of us. And He will send us to Hell for not getting it.
Is this really what you believe?

This is where the problem comes in. I believe God did communicate what He wants and some people for whatever reason don't believe what He says. He didn't fail to communicate with us. Everyone has the same information available to them. The only difference is what they do with it.

So in your example a person creates a communication system, teaches the students and then tries to use it. If the students can't use it there is more than one possible reason. First the teacher may not have taught it well enough. Second students may not have paid attention. Third students may have forgotten what the teacher taught them. Fourth students don't pay attention when the message is sent. So three out of the four can reasonably be considered the students fault. How would the teacher be lousy if options two, three or four are what happened? BTW, this is how children have been tested for many years. Teachers teaches and you either learn it or you don't but either way the responsibility for knowing the subject was always on the child.

[Jax Agnesson]

This is where the problem comes in. I believe God did communicate what He wants and some people for whatever reason

Do you have any ideas what reasons there might have been?

don't believe what He says. He didn't fail to communicate with us. Everyone has the same information available to them.The only difference is what they do with it.

You think so? How could the Aztecs have known God didn't want them to sacrifice their children to Him?

So in your example a person creates a communication system, teaches the students and then tries to use it. If the students can't use it there is more than one possible reason. First the teacher may not have taught it well enough. Second students may not have paid attention. Third students may have forgotten what the teacher taught them. Fourth students don't pay attention when the message is sent. So three out of the four can reasonably be considered the students fault. How would the teacher be lousy if options two, three or four are what happened? BTW, this is how children have been tested for many years. Teachers teaches and you either learn it or you don't but either way the responsibility for knowing the subject was always on the child.

Yes. Fair enough, Charles. My analogy falls down at some point. But at what point?
The fact is, a school teacher doesn't have any power over what kind of brains the kids are born with, how they are reared in their first years, Whether they get a decent breakfast before coming to school, etc. So the teacher isn't entirely to blame if they can't concentrate. But, I would argue, neither asre the children deserving of punishment for that.
Unlike our powerless schoolteacher, however, an Almighty Creator God would have total control over how much capacity for understanding His creatures will have. He has, even allowing for free will, total knowledge of what kinds of things His creatures would be able to make sense of. And He appears to have chosen to leave a minority of His creatures with a jumbled set of mutually contradictory stories, and the rest of us with not even that.
If the proposition is that an omnipotent, omniscient, wise and loving God tried to tell us what He wants of us, then a coherent way of matching that proposition with the observable state of human ignorance has yet to be presented.

[Jax Agnesson]

[Replying to post 40 by dbohm]

There is also another point to be made - namely what would be compelling evidence to Jax may not at all be compelling to me. I might agree that the evidence provided showed a very powerful being perhaps an angel or demon but not necessarily God.

I don't really get the reference to compelling evidence here, Dbohm. The question of evidence is not as important, in my view, as the question of whether the message is comprehensible, coherent, and not prone to complete misunderstanding.
Compelling evidence might interfere with free-will. A message could be devised, by any reasonably prescient and intelligent being, that could convey His definitions of right and wrong behaviour without compelling our agreement.
This is what a God as described by Christianity was supposed to have attempted, and clearly no such message has been received.
One third of humanity has received some version of the message of Jesus, one third has received some interpretation of the message of Mohammed, and one third recognises neither of the above. And this is after thousands of years.
Ergo, if the Christian God exists and is omnipotent, we would have to assume that He did not want to transmit His moral laws to us.

[McCulloch]

This is where the problem comes in. I believe God did communicate what He wants and some people for whatever reason don't believe what He says. He didn't fail to communicate with us. Everyone has the same information available to them. The only difference is what they do with it.

So in your example a person creates a communication system, teaches the students and then tries to use it. If the students can't use it there is more than one possible reason. First the teacher may not have taught it well enough. Second students may not have paid attention. Third students may have forgotten what the teacher taught them. Fourth students don't pay attention when the message is sent. So three out of the four can reasonably be considered the students fault. How would the teacher be lousy if options two, three or four are what happened? BTW, this is how children have been tested for many years. Teachers teaches and you either learn it or you don't but either way the responsibility for knowing the subject was always on the child.

Teachers did not create the students. God, it is said, created humans. Is God such a bad teacher that most of us do not get the message correctly? When most of the students in a teacher's class fail, year after year, that teacher's ability to teach will be brought into question.

[dbohm]

[Replying to post 40 by dbohm]

There is also another point to be made - namely what would be compelling evidence to Jax may not at all be compelling to me. I might agree that the evidence provided showed a very powerful being perhaps an angel or demon but not necessarily God.

I don't really get the reference to compelling evidence here, Dbohm. The question of evidence is not as important, in my view, as the question of whether the message is comprehensible, coherent, and not prone to complete misunderstanding.
Compelling evidence might interfere with free-will. A message could be devised, by any reasonably prescient and intelligent being, that could convey His definitions of right and wrong behaviour without compelling our agreement.
This is what a God as described by Christianity was supposed to have attempted, and clearly no such message has been received.
One third of humanity has received some version of the message of Jesus, one third has received some interpretation of the message of Mohammed, and one third recognises neither of the above. And this is after thousands of years.
Ergo, if the Christian God exists and is omnipotent, we would have to assume that He did not want to transmit His moral laws to us.

I don't think God's moral laws are confusing at all, as Paul writes in Galatians 5:14 'The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbour as yourself".' And again when describing what a Christian life is meant to look like, 'But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law'.Gal.5:22

There are many denominations in Christianity, but as a recent convert and with no special allegiance to any single one, they seem to have a great deal more in common than their differences. Roman Catholics, and all the major Protestant denominations agree on the Apostle, Nicene and Athanasian Creed. And I haven't come across a denomination yet that teaches we should hate our neighbour and treat our enemies with spite and revenge.