What Would God's Word Be Like?

[FireDragon76]

That's a bit dishonest isn't it? The Byzantine empire was the remnants of the Roman empire...what was essentially left after it's fall, and while it did pretty well for itself for a few centuries...it never reached the levels of civilization the Romans did. After a brief expansion, it's mainly torn apart by...Muslim nations.

That's actually a chauvinstic, archaic Victorian era-reading that doesn't do justice to the actual history. That sort of thing went out of style decades ago in academia.

The Byzantines made some advances in engineering and mathematics. Much of their learning set the stage for the Renaissance. If anything, their civilization represented a break with the old Roman way of doing things. Christianity gave their civilization an optimism and harmony that pagan Rome was lacking.

This became a method for the church to establish and maintain power...they got to tell everyone what to believe and what to do.

The pope basically emerged in a power vacuum of weak states and tribes in western Europe. In some ways he was a good thing. Especially early on, he helped organize European civilization and settle disputes. Let's not buy into a needlessly anti-catholic reading of history, shall we?

They claimed to be celibate. Unfortunately, instead of preserving all of the greatGreek and Roman texts and writings....they destroyed them. No point in keeping around anything which was pagan and might contradict the bible.

While many texts were lost, some survived. Pagan Vikings in Britain, on the other hand, didn't care for books. So I think you don't grasp what the issue is. The number of copiers were limited, and you can't blame them for copying stuff they were more interested in... that's only natural.

Arabic nations, however, conquered the Byzantines...established the Ottoman empire...and discovered all those great Roman and Greek scholars.

The Byzantines were trading and exchanging knowledge with the Arabs and Persian even before they fell. Much of this learning came to southern Italy from Byzantine refugees after the fall of Constantinople.

They improved mathematics, astronomy, and other sciences and became the shining hub of civilization for centuries while Europe became increasingly backwards and theocratic.

This is anti-Christian propaganda pure and simple. A lot of the groundwork for modern Muslim fundamentalism was laid in the same time period. If anything, Arab thinkers like Averroes were appreciated more in Europe than in the Muslim world, where his opinions fell out of favor (or even was condemned), in favor of a fatalistic view of the world common to much of modern Islam in that region.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's saying that God's word, if heard, elicits an immediate response.

Ahhh...ok...I'm not seeing that.

Well the story of Lot and his daughters is meant to be historical, not parabolic. It explains where the troublesome Moabites and Ammonites came from - an incestual relationship.

The message is that sin can have unforeseen, devastating long-term consequences.

You're right....it's a bad example of a parable. I look at it that way since I don't believe Lot existed or the events happened...but it is meant more as a historic story. Still, I choose it because as with so much of the story, it's so widely open to interpretation. Is it about hospitality? Virtue? Homosexuality? Is the rape of Lot a caution against tempting women? Is it the twisting of an alcoholic child abuser of who is the victim?

In other words...what is the reader supposed to "get" from the story? And it doesn't matter what your reply is...there's multiple interpretations.

God's word, once heard, cannot be ignored any more than the roaring lion can be ignored.

Ok...and would you accept that it's no longer a valid analogy since the vast majority of us who would now hear a lion roar can in fact, safely ignore it?

Where would people get such an unbiblical belief that all knowledge outside of the Bible is useless?

My guess would be the bible itself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's actually a chauvinstic, archaic Victorian era-reading that doesn't do justice to the actual history. That sort of thing went out of style decades ago in academia.

The Byzantines made some advances in engineering and mathematics. Much of their learning set the stage for the Renaissance. If anything, their civilization represented a break with the old Roman way of doing things. Christianity gave their civilization an optimism and harmony that pagan Rome was lacking.

I studied a few terms of ancient history in college...so while my knowledge isn't particularly deep on the Byzantines, how they fit into the larger picture is something I remember. So, unless I'm wrong, most historians consider their major accomplishments being...

1. Preservation of Roman and Greek knowledge.
2. Acting as a sort of buffer...protecting the rest of Europe from Muslim empires...though not all.

Now, if you know more than I do, please, list some of their great advances...no need to go crazy, a few will do.

The pope basically emerged in a power vacuum of weak states and tribes in western Europe. In some ways he was a good thing. Especially early on, he helped organize European civilization and settle disputes. Let's not buy into a needlessly anti-catholic reading of history, shall we?

Weak tribes and states is somewhat subjective...I certainly wouldn't call the Huns "Weak". I really only see the rise of the pope as more of a symbol of christian persecution and intolerance of all other religions. I don't see anything "anti-catholic" or needless about it....if you think torturing people and burning them at the stake is anti-catholic, then history is going to look somewhat anti-catholic lol.

While many texts were lost, some survived. Pagan Vikings in Britain, on the other hand, didn't care for books. So I think you don't grasp what the issue is. The number of copiers were limited, and you can't blame them for copying stuff they were more interested in... that's only natural.

I don't blame them for copying texts...not at all. It's the widespread destruction of texts, alteration of texts, and keeping the population ignorant I despise.

The Byzantines were trading and exchanging knowledge with the Arabs and Persian even before they fell. Much of this learning came to southern Italy from Byzantine refugees after the fall of Constantinople.

Sure, and even more was spread by crusaders...but if saving the knowledge of the Romans and Greeks is the best thing they did, then it's not as if christianity rapidly advanced civilization, is it?

For thousands of years...aside from ancient China...the Mediterranean region was the seat of civilization and modern advancement. Under the Greeks and Romans...and even Muslims....lots of advances were made. Comparatively, the best thing christians did was hold onto the advances of others.

This is anti-Christian propaganda pure and simple. A lot of the groundwork for modern Muslim fundamentalism was laid in the same time period. If anything, Arab thinkers like Averroes were appreciated more in Europe than in the Muslim world, where his opinions fell out of favor (or even was condemned), in favor of a fatalistic view of the world common to much of modern Islam in that region.

Propaganda? We don't call "algebra" algebra because Thomas Aquinas came up with it...a lot of ancient history doesn't make christianity look good...because it wasn't. You should really be thankful I'm not talking about the role it played during colonialism and slavery...cuz it's not pretty.

The fact is that the less theocratic a state was...whether it's christian or muslim...and the more it embraced rationality and science, the quicker it advances technologically and humanitarily.

 

[FireDragon76]

Ana, I've concluded you seem to have an axe to grind. I mean, you seem to fawn over the Arabs so much, the pagan Romans. As long as it's not Christian, it's great, but everything bad about the world is laid at the feet of Christianity? I think that's really intellectually dishonest.

 

[FireDragon76]

Oh, I know Christianity has its dark side. Believe me, I know. But to condemn it all for burning of witches, inquisitions, and so forth is rather lopsided. I don't see you holding Islam to the same standards (which has no spotless history, and that's an understatement), or the pagan Romans (who honestly had no moral compunctions with treating human beings as nonhumans). If you did, you'ld realize there's good and bad in most human cultures and it's silly to dismiss the claims of Christians just because hey, we are human too and capable of making mistakes. Again, nothing about the Christian religion implies that we are impeccable people.

What I will say is that I think a lot of the dynamism of western culture comes from the unique Christian practice of forgiveness and repentance. We are capable of thinking about wrongs we have done . Other cultures, like Japan, have a great deal of difficulty doing this. Everything is about "face", appearances, and managing that public persona. And when things go bad, somebody has to atone for it, and unfortunately Asians have some very blood conflicts that make European history look relatively calm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana, I've concluded you seem to have an axe to grind. I mean, you seem to fawn over the Arabs so much, the pagan Romans. As long as it's not Christian, it's great, but everything bad about the world is laid at the feet of Christianity? I think that's really intellectually dishonest.

Not at all...I don't believe that any religion has ever been a significant boon to mankind. Those nations at those times didn't advance because of their religious beliefs...they advanced in spite of them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh, I know Christianity has its dark side. Believe me, I know. But to condemn it all for burning of witches, inquisitions, and so forth is rather lopsided. I don't see you holding Islam to the same standards (which has no spotless history, and that's an understatement), or the pagan Romans (who honestly had no moral compunctions with treating human beings as nonhumans). If you did, you'ld realize there's good and bad in most human cultures and it's silly to dismiss the claims of Christians just because hey, we are human too and capable of making mistakes. Again, nothing about the Christian religion implies that we are impeccable people.

With very few exceptions...just about any belief system, religious or otherwise, tends to have a history of persecution and elimination of its opponents...that's not really always something that stifles mankind though.

It's when a belief system tells it's followers that it's the only source of truth in the world that it becomes a burden upon mankind. While it's true christianity hasn't always been that way...it was that way for a long time. A time widely recognized as one of the dark ages.

What I will say is that I think a lot of the dynamism of western culture comes from the unique Christian practice of forgiveness and repentance. We are capable of thinking about wrongs we have done . Other cultures, like Japan, have a great deal of difficulty doing this. Everything is about "face", appearances, and managing that public persona. And when things go bad, somebody has to atone for it, and unfortunately Asians have some very blood conflicts that make European history look relatively calm.

I'm sure you believe that...

Christianity created a hierarchy of authority for those who held they keys to salvation. They got to decide, quite arbitrarily, who had power and who didn't. It was oppressive in the worst of ways...the Vatican didn't get wealthy off of donations and tithes. In a lot of ways, they were no better than the barbarian kings who laid siege to cities and demanded tribute. It may have been more formal, but it was essentially the same threat...do as we say or we'll rip your kingdom out from beneath you.

Not to mention it stifled the greatest minds of its generations....and I'm not just talking about the likes of Galileo. Imagine all Thomas Aquinas could have done had he not been wasting his time dreaming up the kingdoms of angels.

 

[FireDragon76]

You know that's really quite childish thinking. Aquinas would not have been Aquinas without his religious beliefs, they spurred him to think about God a great deal and to study philosophy and theology. If he had been an atheist, he probably would have been a different person, perhaps one not known for any significant achievements. In the middle ages, men such as Aquinas often had no particular birthright, and thus were destined for a life of obscurity for the most part.

 

[brightlights]

Ok...and would you accept that it's no longer a valid analogy since the vast majority of us who would now hear a lion roar can in fact, safely ignore it?

If you found yourself in the presence of a roaring lion without the safety of a retaining wall then you would be very frightened. The analogy will always be valid.

My guess would be the bible itself.

Guess again. I challenge you to find me one bit of Scripture that warrants such an unbiblical belief that true knowledge is only contained in Scripture. Scripture admonishes us to study the natural world in order to gain wisdom (Proverbs 6:6).

 

[Dave RP]

Not sure where to put this...

1. I've requested access to the outreach section but there has been no response.
2. The philosophy section has been shut down.
3. I want to talk with both Christians and non-Christians.

So if mods would move this to outreach and grant me access that would be awesome!

That being said...

If you're a non-believer then you reject the notion that the Bible is God's word. You might even think that it's a very strange book. It presents itself as sort of a meandering history of a bronze-age, middle-eastern tribe who gets delivered from slavery and conquers the land of Canaan, highlighting a few major characters along the way.

Along with this there's a lot of aphorisms, wisdom literature, and poetry. And there's also a great deal of 15th century BC civil law to sift through.

In the NT there's several stories about a Galilean carpenter who taught, healed, died, and rose again. Then this guy Paul writes a bunch of letters to small communities around the ancient world who believe that said carpenter is still alive and is God's son.

In both the OT and NT there's psychedelic, apocalyptic literature about the end of the world.

And that about sums up the Bible.

For a lot of people, this doesn't strike them as the word of God. So my question for these people is - If God were real, and if he were a person, and if he wanted to communicate with us through words: what would his words be like?

Would he give us stories, parables, laws, poetry? What would you expect communication from God to be like if there was such a thing?

As a non believer I find the question very difficult to answer. I do see the Bible as a series of stories, myths and legends which have become, for the Christian, Gods word. Personally I just don't understand how anyone could take the Bible literally, particularly the old testament - creation in 6 days, Noahs ark, Job, Lot, Jonah etc. They are just stories to illustrate a point. The new testament has many myths and legends as well. How could anyone know that 3 wise men (or whoever) followed a star, how shepherds heard the "good news", an angel appearing to Mary, going to Bethlehem are all totally unverifiable and were written years after the event to satisfy (retrospectively) prophesy.

Now, returning to the question, how would I as a on believer expect God, if he/ she/ it exists to communicate with humankind. I would personally expect if he wanted to be worshipped and feared (as the bible says) to make us absolutely certain that he existed. There would be some old testament style event - HERE I AM, LOOK AT ME, YOU CAN'T MISS ME.

If however he didn't want to be worshipped and feared but just wanted a personal relationship with his creation, he would contact each individual person and establish that connection. I do know of one Christian who says she has a personal relationship with God. On that basis we have no need for organised religion, no need for religious conflict, evangelism, conversion and the like. In my opinion religious faith is and should remain personal, there is no need for the dogma of various sects.

As I have never experienced either of these scenarios, I continue to believe that there is no god, but I understand that view is not shared by large numbers of individuals who are not fools.

 

[durangodawood]

...For a lot of people, this doesn't strike them as the word of God. So my question for these people is - If God were real, and if he were a person, and if he wanted to communicate with us through words: what would his words be like?...

I have a terribly hard time believing that the early wisdom literature, documents of mystical experience, sacred poetry, etc of just one culture comes from God, and all the rest in the whole world doesnt.

That seems like the natural sort of chauvinism that many cultures indulge in to preserve their own sense of special identity.

So I would expect to word of God to show up here and there in various cultures and times, revealed by diverse 'prophets' according to their various cultures' forms.

 

[brightlights]

I have a terribly hard time believing that the early wisdom literature, documents of mystical experience, sacred poetry, etc of just one culture comes from God, and all the rest in the whole world doesnt.

That seems like the natural sort of chauvinism that many cultures indulge in to preserve their own sense of special identity.

So I would expect to word of God to show up here and there in various cultures and time, revealed by diverse 'prophets' according to their various cultures forms.

I can understand this. How would we possibly be able to discern which bits from around the world are God's word and which are not?

 

[durangodawood]

I can understand this. How would we possibly be able to discern which bits from around the world are God's word and which are not?

I'm not sure. Probably the way most wisdom literature gets tested: by time and repetition.

Keep in mind the Christian Bible only avoids that issue for people who assent to it by faith. I suppose any other sacred literature could be treated the same way by believers.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not sure. Probably the way most wisdom literature gets tested: by time and repetition.

I have no problem with the concept of general revelation.

 

[jayem]

Not sure where to put this...

1. I've requested access to the outreach section but there has been no response.
2. The philosophy section has been shut down.
3. I want to talk with both Christians and non-Christians.

So if mods would move this to outreach and grant me access that would be awesome!

That being said...

If you're a non-believer then you reject the notion that the Bible is God's word. You might even think that it's a very strange book. It presents itself as sort of a meandering history of a bronze-age, middle-eastern tribe who gets delivered from slavery and conquers the land of Canaan, highlighting a few major characters along the way.

Along with this there's a lot of aphorisms, wisdom literature, and poetry. And there's also a great deal of 15th century BC civil law to sift through.

In the NT there's several stories about a Galilean carpenter who taught, healed, died, and rose again. Then this guy Paul writes a bunch of letters to small communities around the ancient world who believe that said carpenter is still alive and is God's son.

In both the OT and NT there's psychedelic, apocalyptic literature about the end of the world.

And that about sums up the Bible.

For a lot of people, this doesn't strike them as the word of God. So my question for these people is - If God were real, and if he were a person, and if he wanted to communicate with us through words: what would his words be like?

Would he give us stories, parables, laws, poetry? What would you expect communication from God to be like if there was such a thing?

Scripture can't be examined in isolation. If a single, omnipotent, universally sovereign god really existed, then I'd expect everything--literally every aspect of life--to be radically different from what we observe. There would not be thousands of different world religions. In whatever manner this god communicated with us, it would be with absolute clarity and would be universally understood. There would be no mysteries, and no guessing games over symbolism or meanings of words. Why would a sovereign god allow confusion? In fact, there would be no need for multiple translations. God's word would be like mathematics--expressed in a universal language. And like mathematics, it would be patently undeniable (excepting by maybe a few crackpots.) It would perfectly conform to how the world operates, be free of human cultural bias, and clearly explain what God expects of us.

 

[brightlights]

Scripture can't be examined in isolation. If a single, omnipotent, universally sovereign god really existed, then I'd expect everything--literally every aspect of life--to be radically different from what we observe. There would not be thousands of different world religions. In whatever manner this god communicated with us, it would be with absolute clarity and would be universally understood. There would be no mysteries, and no guessing games over symbolism or meanings of words. Why would a sovereign god allow confusion? In fact, there would be no need for multiple translations. God's word would be like mathematics--expressed in a universal language. And like mathematics, it would be patently undeniable (excepting by maybe a few crackpots.) It would perfectly conform to how the world operates, be free of human cultural bias, and clearly explain what God expects of us.

This would also imply that human beings are perfect and incapable of error, bias, suppression of truth, etc, wouldn't it?

Christians would say that God has communicated with clarity and he has not given any unnecessary confusion - although not everything in Scripture is equally clear. Yet Christians would say that human finitude and human sin complicate things and it's largely a result of these that we have the situation that you've described.

So are you saying that if God were real then humans would necessarily be perfect?

 

[jayem]

This would also imply that human beings are perfect and incapable of error, bias, suppression of truth, etc, wouldn't it?

Christians would say that God has communicated with clarity and he has not given any unnecessary confusion - although not everything in Scripture is equally clear. Yet Christians would say that human finitude and human sin complicate things and it's largely a result of these that we have the situation that you've described.

So are you saying that if God were real then humans would necessarily be perfect?

Of course. If a perfect supreme being existed, then its every action would be perfect. Including everything it created. That's--uh, a perfectly logical conclusion.

 

[brightlights]

Of course. If a perfect supreme being existed, then its every action would be perfect. Including everything it created. That's--uh, a perfectly logical conclusion.

So if human beings were perfect then there would be no need for God's word, right?

I suppose you're saying that if God were real there wouldn't be any such thing as the Bible because there would be no need for it. The fact that there is a Bible at all is evidence against God's existence. Do you agree with this?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you found yourself in the presence of a roaring lion without the safety of a retaining wall then you would be very frightened. The analogy will always be valid.

Even if there's no more lions in the future? Or what about a group of people who've never seen a lion?

Guess again. I challenge you to find me one bit of Scripture that warrants such an unbiblical belief that true knowledge is only contained in Scripture. Scripture admonishes us to study the natural world in order to gain wisdom (Proverbs 6:6).

I'm not sure what point you're arguing here...

Are you saying that all through the dark ages the only schooling most Europeans got was not just the bible? Or are you arguing that they didn't do this because they thought the bible was the only source of truth?

I would be guessing...but passages like this would probably have had something to do with it...

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you"

John 16: 13-15

 

[Ana the Ist]

You know that's really quite childish thinking. Aquinas would not have been Aquinas without his religious beliefs, they spurred him to think about God a great deal and to study philosophy and theology. If he had been an atheist, he probably would have been a different person, perhaps one not known for any significant achievements. In the middle ages, men such as Aquinas often had no particular birthright, and thus were destined for a life of obscurity for the most part.

Right...well, you see it one way, I see it another. You see it as a man who was inspired by his religion and went on to write extensively about it, philosophy, and law.

I see him as a genius, a genuinely brilliant man of his time...who was unfortunately steeped in religious tradition. Take a look at this page...

http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/angels.html

Here's just a tidbit of what he wrote about angels. It's of no use to me as an atheist...and I'm willing to bet it's not really of any use to you as a christian. It doesn't benefit mankind, it doesn't push forward philosophical thinking, and it isn't even really relevant to religion today.

When we talk about how brilliant he was, and talk about his great writings...we're generally talking about the things he wrote apart from this useless religious tripe. If Aquinas had lived in a time where science was more prominent, or even things like engineering, medicine, physics, biology...or other actually useful fields of study were taught...he might have made significant lasting contributions to mankind.

As it is, he lived in a time and place where the only real education anyone got was centered on the bible...so we know him for some arguments and philosophy about god. Sure, that's good for christianity...but is it good for mankind? Not really.