I don't get that at all. Since man is contacting something Eternal and Divine, why wouldn't our experience and messages be identical regardless of the culture or time period?

Some thoughts I'd like to share about the above comment which I am familiar with only because I've seen it used several times in conversations that I am not engaged in directly, but observe from the outside.

It puzzles me why this is often considered a brilliant or clever rhetorical comeback, or a silver bullet that causes a mortal wound to the person making the claim that their personal experience with a divine intelligence is real.

Suspending a reasonable desire to establish the truth or falsity of the existence of a metaphysical entity, it seems to me that it would NOT be much of a surprise if our experiences and or "messages" would be considerably different from others, both within and across cultural boundaries.

Even within exclusive religious communities, no two person's experience could be or would be akin to another. The uniqueness of each person's perspectival, subjective lens makes that utterly impossible. One Presbyterian's experience is different from his neighbor's, one Muslim's experience different from the next, etc. etc.

For the sake of the argument, if there was the possibility a divine personal relationship at any level, the "communication" (for lack of a better word) would not surprisingly be interpreted in many ways by a very subjective recipient. Some of these impressions could be grossly mischaracterized in the process, while others could change lives for the better.

We don't all see the same painting.
A poem or sonnet does not evoke exactly the same feelings between two or more people, and it very likely evokes much different feelings at different times when experienced by the same person.
"To be or not to be" can evoke many feelings in different contexts throughout one's life.

Again, suspending our beliefs and disbeliefs for a moment (which by the way is the most difficult thing to do, or one of the most difficult) there also seems to be yet another overly presumptuous expectation that a divine being would have to broadcast in a very restricted style. The restriction being identical to everyone else, despite every person's unique conceptual existence.

Sidetracking a bit, evidence itself is often interpreted multiple ways by the same observer and by different observers at different times. And that is why hypotheses are an enormously malleable cognitive tools. Our impressions of an ever changing environment call for reconsideration of data processed by subjective creatures. We adjust accordingly and fine tune our experiences.

If the laws that govern the eternal universe are a quilt work, then the expectation of uniformity is an error on our part.

But conversations like these broached by those that hold to the presupposition that a divine being most certainly does not exist are ultimately disingenuous. There is no wish to be proven wrong. The belief in the non existence of a divine being has been established well before the conversation has taken place.

when you look across the various mythologies of the world in many places and times it is striking how similar motifs occur over and over again, eg. Campbells "Hero with a Thousand Faces"

of course there are also differences, syncretism, monotheism, pantheism etc etc.

the local aspects that vary and yet the common themes can be found almost anywhere.

it's when one group presents its mythology as factually true and thinks the other guys mythology is "merely" mythology an error is made...

you might have heard it said

without a personal relationship with God through Christ you will be a lost sinner in Satan's power going to hell...

or

death to all who blaspheme the prophet...

etc etc

you get that typically with monotheism, as opposed to

whom you call allah we call yahweh, it's cool we are all worshipping under different traditions but theres only one god so it's ok

no you get, my tradition is fact your tradition is primitive superstition

when you try to read any mythology as history you are doomed because it just isn't history, it's mythology, even if it is placed in a historical setting.

I think the question was valid ant. It wasn’t a silver bullet comment, it was a question.

I have a similar question. If modern lawyers can create a document that can be read by nearly any person in our multicultural nation with limited misinterpretation, how is it that a supposedly divinely inspired document can be so grossly misinterpreted to allow for crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts, and bigotry like WBC/etc?


On the original thread, I think it serves as an excellent example of the differences between religious and non-religious thinking. In religious thinking, you start with a conclusion then seek evidence to support it. Another difference is that cherry-picked instances are considered sufficient evidence to post an article.

If modern lawyers can create a document that can be read by nearly any person in our multicultural nation with limited misinterpretation,

Actually from personal experience, legal documents (ie engagement letters, entertainment contracts, settlement agreements, transactional documents, and general agreements) are quite often disputed for legal ambiguity. It's all apart of nailing down clarity.
I've experienced contractual disagreements due to the language of the agreement disputed years later, when one party was lead to believe that language X meant something other than what X was to have represented at the time of execution.


Thanks

EDIT:

Also, client's often pay for second opinions related to contractual language before and sometimes AFTER execution.
Counsel often wonder what on earth a client was thinking when s/he agreed to the language of an agreement.
Happens all the time.
With the right lawyer, anything can be made to appear ambiguous.

But my primary point is different from your digression.

Actually from personal experience, legal documents (ie engagement letters, entertainment contracts, settlement agreements, transactional documents, and general agreements) are quite often disputed for legal ambiguity. It's all apart of nailing down clarity.

Notice that I never said legal documents weren't disputed. It was a comparison, and compared to modern legalese that isn't intentionally ambiguous or deceitful, the bible is poorly written as a guide for behavior. Unless you're saying the bible is intentionally ambiguous or deceitful, your comparisons are apples to oranges.

If there is a dispute regarding the verbiage, does the agency that wrote the terms have any liability? Who would hold the liability for the inquisition, the crusades, witch hunts, etc, if religiously motivated misdeeds were to go to trial?

Notice that I never said legal documents weren't disputed.

Language disputes.
Semantic disputes.

Language not necessarily related to laws/bylaws.
Not directly related to legalese.


You're also thinking that the crusades, etc were strictly religious commands to "go out and kill those dirty heretics because God just told us too on a loud speaker"
This is an overly simplistic, illiterate understanding of events like this.
Power over people by politics is very much in the mix.
Just the same as secular governments issued edicts to search and destroy all people not in line with the ideology.

You're digressing from my initial post here.
Red herring no more, please.

Thanks

You're digressing from my initial post here.
Red herring no more, please.

I responded to the original post.

You're also thinking that the crusades, etc were strictly religious commands to "go out and kill those dirty heretics because God just told us too on a loud speaker"

No, that's not what I was thinking. I was thinking the bible is flawed in the diverse(and sometimes evil) interpretations that it allows. It is evidence that the bible is not divinely inspired. How could an omniscient intelligence allow misinterpretations that lead to mass death, even when other factors are considered?

How could an omniscient intelligence allow misinterpretations that lead to mass death, even when other factors are considered?

Again, you're assuming God must intervene and that he is morally obligated to act accordingly.
You have decided the necessity of divine interference by an omnipotent being who would make the same decision you possibly would make if you were omnipotent. As if there's some cosmic star trek prime directive that has codified when action MUST be taken to prevent free will from transpiring.

We can not have this conversation with all this presupposition baggage of yours.
"An omnipotent being should do this, must do this, wouldn't allow this" etc etc.

We are all meat robots who are wired for determinism.
This all points to the presumptuousness that is at the heart of atheist fundamentalism.

By the way, this line of thinking that Interbane is insisting on as a flaw in the character of a God is a perfect example of the DFH.

If daddy really cared he would stop this from happening.
If daddy really cared he would stop the hurt, pain, and anguish.

Daddy doesn't stop all this evil from happening, so he must not care for me.
Therefore, I no longer believe daddy is my daddy because if he was really my daddy, he would prove he cared.

ant wrote:If daddy really cared he would stop this from happening.
If daddy really cared he would stop the hurt, pain, and anguish.

Is that strawman supposed to be me? The baggage is not mine ant. The baggage belongs to those who define god in certain ways. This may not apply to you.

Here is the correction to your childish strawman:

P1) God exists.
P2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
C) God must intervene to reduce suffering in all possible cases, as long as it didn’t conflict with free will.

If you notice, the conclusion is not based on a presupposition of mine. The conclusion follows directly from the premises. Premises which are not mine, but which many religious people believe. If you add the observation: “God does not intervene to reduce suffering in all possible cases, as long as it doesn’t conflict with free will,” then it also logically follows that one of the two premises is false.

But this was an argument from another post. In the current thread, the argument is structured differently, even though it's still a tangent. With the same premises, you could reach the conclusion that "God would limit misinterpretation of the bible in every way possible while still allowing for free will." There are plenty of examples that show this doesn't happen. The premises would look something like this:
P1) God exists
P2) God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent
P3) God influenced the writing of the bible through divine inspiration

ant wrote:We are all meat robots who are wired for determinism.
This all points to the presumptuousness that is at the heart of atheist fundamentalism.

Clarify what you mean, if you don’t mind. What is it about my beliefs that has something to do with presumptuousness and atheist fundamentalism? I’m going to call you out here, these sentences are nonsensical gibberish.


This may be better suited for another thread, but it tends to pop up no matter what the subject is.