If not there, where? If not then, when?

[MajGenl.Meade]

The whole Jesus thing, if true, is the best example of giving a message badly I can think of. Why do it then? Why do it that way at all . . . Seriously, if god thinks sending himself down as his son to be born of a virgin so we can kill him so that he will forgive us, to an illiterate society, in the year 33 AD, is the way to get people in 2010 to accept faith, then he really needs to go back to the drawing board. It's stupid, illogical, counter productive and not worth of a simpleton, let alone an omnipotent deity.

CP guided me to his thread in All our own work and I wondered if perhaps Gob you'd mind giving me a bit more on the above. Aside from the Bible bits, I'm interested in the "illiterate society, in the year 33AD" and the degree to which that has been "counter productive".

It seems to suggest that you have an alternative place and year in mind which would have had "better" results than those actually obtained and I am curious as to where and when God should have taken action to that end?

Secondarily, your quote is from Dawkins, the man who thinks the only way to avoid the scientific fact that the universe had an actual beginning 13.7 billion years ago and that this universe exhibits "fine tuning" (the scientific and not religious notion) is to postulate with no evidence whatsoever a "multiverse" of simple words amongst which ours does have this fine tuning and others don't or and oh perhaps the universe oscillates - a position repudiated by scientists of many ilks. Perhaps he is the expert on faith without reason? But not let's get distracted from the first question too much - maybe I shouldn't have mentioned it.

Meade

[Big RR]

Perhaps what was said in the song "Superstar", from "Jesus Christ Superstar"?

Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand.
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned.
Why'd you choose such a backward time in such a strange land?
If you'd come today you could have reached a whole nation.
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication.
Don't you get me wrong.
I only want to know.

[alice]

[random comment] I loved 'Jesus Christ Superstar' - it was the first live musical performance I'd ever seen and it was just fantastic. I've seen the movie, and it was pretty good too, and I've seen a few songs/youtube clips from the American show, but nothing beat the Australian show with Trevor White and Jon English. I still have the album - the purple one,from the original Australian show, and can still sing along to every song, and still enjoy listening to it. [/random comment]

[MajGenl.Meade]

Without getting into a thread about JCS (please), I also really enjoyed that movie (more than once) and saw the stage show too - I think Neely and Anderson were both in that as well. I even bought the LP.

The song you quote is more than a little ironic. 20th century mass media communicating the Christian story (of a kind) all across the world has Judas asking why the event wasn't happening today when mass media are available to publicise it! "Superstar" indeed.

Meade

[Gob]

The song you quote is more than a little ironic. 20th century mass media communicating the Christian story (of a kind) all across the world has Judas asking why the event wasn't happening today when mass media are available to publicise it!

Meade

A question I have oft asked myself. Indeed, why wasn't the whole thing done properly the first time around, if it is so bloody important to god...

[Rick]

By all means absolve man of any responsibility...

[Gob]

Indeed.

[loCAtek]

Who said it was/is only done once? Messengers come at all times.

[MajGenl.Meade]

A question I have oft asked myself. Indeed, why wasn't the whole thing done properly the first time around, if it is so bloody important to god...

That is exactly the point I’m asking you about. You claim "the whole thing" has not been done properly but have not stated where it should have been done and when.... and more relevantly how to measure better results given the standards of the belief system in question.

Something “done properly” must be judged by the rules and purpose of an event. A 1-0 FA Cup Final result might not please people who would have preferred the score to be 4-3. That might be more entertaining - but no improvement on the purpose of determining a competition winner. This may be a pisspoor analogy so don't dwell on it. You know what I mean.

Working within the parameters (i.e. given the Biblical claim that not every person will be saved) there must be a finite number of people who will be saved and a finite number who will not.

In what way would “doing the whole thing properly” in 1972 or 1993 or 2011 indicate a better success in reaching that finite number than the finite number which has in fact been accomplished and will continue to be? (And in the year 3025 would not future-Gob wonder why such a primitive place as Australia and time such as 2011 was used when 3025 in Poughkeepsie would be so much better?)

In the group of “all people” some will not be swayed from their prejudiced opinions by any argument or evidence. If “doing the whole thing properly” means that “all people will be saved”, it would require the end of free-choice and a form of compulsion.

Compulsion is not acceptable. If so, "done properly" must mean that while not all people would be saved, a larger finite number of people would be saved than the finite number that actually have been/are being/will be saved.

However, since the finite number of those who will actually be saved is not known and is not knowable, how can one know that a larger finite number would be saved if 33AD had not happened but 2011 had instead (or any date of choice)?

Therefore there is no better result than that which has been/is being/will be achieved.

Meade

[Gob]

Of course there could be a better way.

If God had written across the sky in words of fire what eh wants done, then there would be no problem. (It's not beyond a god to write in words which would be understood, no matter what language you speak, nor your level of literacy).

This could have been done when the world was created (about 6000 years ago, right?)

Instead we get this charade of him being born as not quite human, to a virgin, so that we could kill him in order for him to forgive us, and the whole thing badly transcribed years later by a bunch of misogynists, and left to the lay person to form his own cult over.

Nonsense, your god is an oaf in that case.

If god creates people who will not be saved, then he's a bigger arse than I first thought, or doesn't exist.

[loCAtek]

Well, as judge of the supreme being, why haven't you done the best absolute judgment that convinces all mankind?
...or you can't?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob, that's not at all a fair or reasonable response and I think you know that. Place and time: what is your answer?

Now if your answer really is that he should have written it across the sky 6,000 years ago (and what is the "it" that should have been written?) which is very far from being the beginning of the world (I thought you knew that it was millions of years ago?)... well that's a bit silly isn't it? Full marks for facetiousness but zero for rationality.

If you don't want to talk sensibly about it, then OK. Game set and match to me and I'll take my prize in mints please

Meade

[alice]

I don't know if this makes sense, but I wanted to contribute but haven't much time to write:

Something “done properly” must be judged by the rules and purpose of an event. ...
Working within the parameters (i.e. given the Biblical claim that not every person will be saved) there must be a finite number of people who will be saved and a finite number who will not.

Given that either (1)God decided the parameters, or (2)man and not God decided those Biblical parameters, then God doesn't have to work within parameters - God can (1) decide to change the parameters or (2) ignore the parameters set by men.

In what way would “doing the whole thing properly” in 1972 or 1993 or 2011 indicate a better success in reaching that finite number than the finite number which has in fact been accomplished and will continue to be? (And in the year 3025 would not future-Gob wonder why such a primitive place as Australia and time such as 2011 was used when 3025 in Poughkeepsie would be so much better?)

Why does God only have to do this once, and why would he do it the way the Bible says he did it last time. Why can't he just every now and then do something pretty darn speactacular on a reasonably regular basis. Not the catholic church possible miracle level of spectacular, and not having Jesus born and die again - that may have sort of worked to some degree last time, but probably wouldn't be as convincing nowadays (and we don't nail people to crosses etc any more, at least not in Australia), but really show everyone that there is no mistake that he is God and he has a message.
Something (just as an idea - not that it has to be this) along the lines of a huge giant set of eyes appearing in the sky that would be seen worldwide, and a voice cutting through all our technology and across the skies speaking in any language anybody understands, simultaneously and yet as one, saying that he is God/Allah/someone like that, and here is his message. And maybe a giant hand reaching down to stop a flood here and save a few hundred people there, and turn one fish into food for an entire starving country, or something like that.
God could do something like that every hundred years or so, and then we'd probably all be believers.

In the group of “all people” some will not be swayed from their prejudiced opinions by any argument or evidence. If “doing the whole thing properly” means that “all people will be saved”, it would require the end of free-choice and a form of compulsion.

If God showed us something pretty spectacular and we all, by our own choice, ended up believing in him, then that would still be our free choice and our free will. I don't understand how universal belief has to be automatically be presumed to be compulsion. All God has to do is something really special, and then leave the choice up to us. That isn't compulsion, just offering us the choice with a more up to date and relevant reference.
I suppose it's the opposite to what we have now, when people are expected to have the choice with no obvious or visual reference except a very old and outdated book. I don't understand why God wants it all to be so mysterious, when he could very easily make it not mysterious.

Compulsion is not acceptable. If so, "done properly" must mean that while not all people would be saved, a larger finite number of people would be saved than the finite number that actually have been/are being/will be saved.

However, since the finite number of those who will actually be saved is not known and is not knowable, how can one know that a larger finite number would be saved if 33AD had not happened but 2011 had instead (or any date of choice)?

Therefore there is no better result than that which has been/is being/will be achieved.

[/quote]
Why does God only want to save a finite number of people. If only the souls go to him and not the bodies, and he's all around and everywhere, how come he hasn't got the capacity to fit everyone in his Kingdom, if everyone begins believing in him?
He's God, so he could change his own 'rulebook' and save all of us, if he wanted to.

What higher purpose does he have for deliberately keeping everyone in the dark, and letting people have horrible crusades and wars that are all about him, and only doing a sort of sneaky hint about himself once a couple of thousand years ago and then never again?
He could boom down from heaven in a very direct way, if he wanted to, every time there are religious uprisings. He doesn't have to do it in some mysterious and open-to-interpretation way that we have to maybe guess a bit at. he's God. We shouldn't be fighting over which interpretation of him is the best - he could just tell us, and then we would all have a common understanding. And it would still be free will.

[loCAtek]

... Alice, is there some way, you could convince Guin to come back?

[thestoat]

Why can't he just every now and then do something pretty darn speactacular on a reasonably regular basis

Alice -you took the words right out of my keyboard. Damn good question imo.

And here's another thing he might bear in mind - why make his son have so many similarities with other deities? Why not something original - surely his omniscience would allow for original thought?

Of course, every now and again someone does come along and say "hey, everyone, I am Jesus". These days we are less credulous

[Crackpot]

Why can't he just every now and then do something pretty darn speactacular on a reasonably regular basis

The short answer is that were were made for God not God for us. Constant miracles do nothing but make us feel they are owed to us. It transforms GOd form all powerful creator to celestial jester. Case in point In the wilderness the jews had Gods constant presence not only that but hes providing them sustinance. But Being human they tire of eating the same thing so God provides them with meat. And what happens? They start worshiping cows.

Give us too much of anything and we by and large will stop appreciating it.

And here's another thing he might bear in mind - why make his son have so many similarities with other deities? Why not something original - surely his omniscience would allow for original thought?

That is because there are certian things we recognize as miraculous and others we don't. "behold I grant you worldwide high speed internet access" Just doesn't cut it (not to mention it would piss off the telecomunications industry)

Of course, every now and again someone does come along and say "hey, everyone, I am Jesus". These days we are less credulous

Not to mention it's unoriginal.

[thestoat]

But Being human they tire of eating the same thing so God provides them with meat. And what happens? They start worshiping cows.

If that annoyed him then I wonder why he did it?

That is because there are certian things we recognize as miraculous and others we don't

So why not make us recognise some things as miraculous and then do these things instead? There must be some advantage to being all powerful

[Crackpot]

you may get differing answers elswhere but both come to a central theme: "the aqusition of knowledge"

To answer question one:

How else would we learn? (sorry to answer a question with a question but a fuller answer follows)

Question two:

because knowledge granted isn't the same or as valuable as knowledge learned. How many times have you gone out and done things that your parents told you not to only to learn that thier warnings were true? After all you "knew" it would happen before didn't you?

[thestoat]

Seems to me that there is a contradiction here. On one hand you say that when god intervenes we don't learn and "start worshipping cows", yet on the other hand you say that he does these things for us to learn. If we aren't learning his lessons then either he isn't a good teacher, which goes against the omni-thing, or we're crap students, which, since he created us, goes against the omni-thing.

If he wanted us to have that knowledge then he could just implant it in our heads. Save a lot of time

[Crackpot]

I'll try to get back to you (and Meade) when I get home I shouldn't be doing this at work But I'm solo with the little one tonight so no promises