19 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThanks. So, if God places the weaker folk in cultures where there are fewer obstacles to the truth, and stronger folk in cultures where there are more obstacles, shouldn't the incidence of Christianity be roughly proportional (or approaching proportionality) across cultures?
You catch on fast.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrMuch of that would depend upon the cross-pollination, don't you think?
Thanks. So, if God places the weaker folk in cultures where there are fewer obstacles to the truth, and stronger folk in cultures where there are more obstacles, shouldn't the incidence of Christianity be roughly proportional (or approaching proportionality) across cultures?
19 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIsn't the incidence of cross-polination something that God takes into account when deciding where a person will be born? If cross-pollination (e.g., thriving missions) substantially effects the likelihood of one's seeing the truth, then wouldn't God place weaker folk in cultures where the incidence of cross-pollination (at least pollination from Christians to non-Christians) was higher? If so, then my question above remains germane.
Much of that would depend upon the cross-pollination, don't you think?
Are there some set of cultural phenonmena that God uses as criterial for determining birth location (e.g. dominant religion), and others that He ignores? If there are some cultural phenomena He ignores, is there any rhyme or reason to the division between relevant and ignored phenomena?
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrAre there some set of cultural phenonmena that God uses as criterial for determining birth location (e.g. dominant religion), and others that He ignores? If there are some cultural phenomena He ignores, is there any rhyme or reason to the division between relevant and ignored phenomena?
If there is a checklist for God's soul-dissemination, I am not aware of it. My post is merely reflective of my objective gratitude in being born in the US. Objective, knowing my penchance toward laziness and un-salmon-like characteristics; grateful for the relative ease of access to the truth here in the States (or, for that matter, any part of the Western societies).
That is not to say I grew up in a religious home, as the opposite is true. However, Christianity was much more readily available to me as a person in the US than say, Hinduism. In my quest, virtually all religions were considered, but all were found wanting, for sundry reasons.
His reasons, however, are laid out in Scripture with respect to the specifics of His functions. Where specifics are not enumerated, principles are, to fill in those gaps. Apparently, He deems it sufficient to reveal some things while leaving other items cast in shadow.
It seems we all have our own sons to kill.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOh, you were just expressing your gratitude? Um, O.k. I thought you were making a claim that, if true, would have observable consequences. After all, if what you said was true, then we should expect to see roughly equivalent Christian/non-Christian ratios across cultures (or, at least, ratios that are approaching equivalence). But, if what you were saying was merely longhand for "hooray, I was born in circumstances favorable to my becoming a Christian!", then I guess congratulations and not questions are in order.
[b]Are there some set of cultural phenonmena that God uses as criterial for determining birth location (e.g. dominant religion), and others that He ignores? If there are some cultural phenomena He ignores, is there any rhyme or reason to the division between relevant and ignored phenomena?
If there is a checklist for God's soul-dissemination, I am ...[text shortened]... me things while leaving other items cast in shadow.
It seems we all have our own sons to kill.[/b]
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrI wouldn't say that necessarily fits the bill, either. For some reason, ease and access doesn't always lend itself toward success, either.
Oh, you were just expressing your gratitude? Um, O.k. I thought you were making a claim that, if true, would have observable consequences. After all, if what you said was true, then we should expect to see roughly equivalent Christian/non-Christian ratios across cultures (or, at least, ratios that are approaching equivalence). But, if what you were saying w ...[text shortened]... ble to my becoming a Christian!", then I guess congratulations and not questions are in order.
Take our freedoms, for instance. Our forebearers fought tooth and nail for specific freedoms then, that we frankly couldn't give two hoots for, today.
Presently, there is more access to truth in all of its forms than ever before. Is the same being accessed? We collectively know more now than (from what we can tell) has ever been known before. And yet, collectively, we are the biggest group of idiots who have ever trod the earth.
Can you imagine the mind-blow it would be to someone of T. Jefferson's intellect to be transferred to the present day? His head would spin from the sheer ignorance in the face of overwhelming knowledge. It could be likened to people starving to death while sitting in full view of an enormous feast.
As far as an extrapolation of my post goes, the final numbers aren't in yet. 'Guess when human history is complete, we can take a look at the charts to see if my hypothesis held any water.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, I guess I don't know what to make of your claim about us being bigger idiots than our ancestors. Women, non-whites, and the poor would probably take issue with that claim.
I wouldn't say that necessarily fits the bill, either. For some reason, ease and access doesn't always lend itself toward success, either.
Take our freedoms, for instance. Our forebearers fought tooth and nail for specific freedoms then, that we frankly couldn't give two hoots for, today.
Presently, there is more access to truth in all of its forms ...[text shortened]... tory is complete, we can take a look at the charts to see if my hypothesis held any water.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrGenerally-speaking, of course. I can't say any of us are fairing as well as we should, or could, given the opportunities available. The ol' law of diminshing return continues to hold forth.
Well, I guess I don't know what to make of your claim about us being bigger idiots than our ancestors. Women, non-whites, and the poor would probably take issue with that claim.
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by bbarrAnd this is where a "Thinking Christians?" thread fizzles out 😳 Grasping at straws of self-doubt?
Well, I guess I don't know what to make of your claim about us being bigger idiots than our ancestors. Women, non-whites, and the poor would probably take issue with that claim.
😞 Rather than trying to decode our spiritual obligations, we should be living like Christ. Be bold!
19 Feb 06
Originally posted by widgetI appreciated the huevos it must take for a brainwashed fanatic who exhibits difficulty constructing clear, grammatically correct sentences to adopt a patrionizing tone with a humorless philosopher whose arguments exhibit care, skill, and attention to detail, and whose typos and misspellings rival only Bowmann's. I nearly fell out of my chair busting my gut.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
....."You catch on fast"
"This cracked me up." ~ Wooly
Newest Testament: [b]Brittany 9.11 And the Truth shall like crack you up, dude.[/b]
20 Feb 06
Originally posted by WulebgrI nearly fell out of my chair busting my gut.
I appreciated the huevos
Do try harder next time, won't you?
Funnier still, the post was meant as concession, not a jab. It is highly doubtful that bbar took it any other way. 'Wonder why you would take it as the latter instead of the former?
20 Feb 06
Originally posted by WulebgrI submit that nearly everyone that chooses one over the other has read only the one they favor, and comes from or lives in a culture where the majority population favors the same one.
Don't you see how that sounds a bit presumptuous?
Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, let's say that we accept the authority of the Christian texts as certified by God. If we also consider the Qur'an in the same terms, we find some contradictions in the self-revealtion of God. How do we decide the relative merits of the competing claims?
I submit t ...[text shortened]... stian.
* I don't know this about you--I'm making an assumption for the sake of argument.
Interesting. I grew up Christian. Everybody I knew was a Christian of some sort—except for a couple Jews, and I really couldn’t comprehend what that meant when I was younger. My formative years were formed inside Christianity. Choice was not really presented—later, choice was discouraged.
I now describe myself sometimes as a “non-aligned, non-supernaturalist monist.” Take that as an attempt at a rough description. I’m not opposed to the notion that I choose that because, intellectually and experientially, it is “the one I favor”—though it does seem more like I have been compelled toward it. I find that Zen and Taoism capture it most straightforwardly, but I find the stream in most religions (though often with a more supernaturalist bent).
Personally, I find a great richness of expression in that stream of “the perennial philosophy” that meanders through Rabbinical Judaism—perhaps because of my fascination with the Hebrew language and its ancient, cavernous resonances (to speak a bit poetically). Let’s say that is “the one I favor” aesthetically (although also spiritually/mystically—using that second term in a “Zen” sense, since it is an oft-misconstrued term).