Divine Inspiration

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Then why did he choose the least effective method; having men from one small region of the planet, in one specific and finite period of time, pass the story on for hundreds of years until some other men finally write it down in a language he knew would eventually die off; to get his message of salvation out to everyone who has ever lived and ever will live?  Can’t you see how little sense that makes? If god truly wishes for as many people as possible to be saved, the first (and perhaps the only necessary) logical thing for him to do is reveal himself plainly to everyone.

Before the revelation of the Qur'an, God revealed other messages to the ancient peoples to their respective languages. So everyone got the warning. The Message of Salvation was already transmitted to those who lived, for those who will live God completes His Final Message with the last Prophet (Muhammad) destined until the end of time and all places (all humanity). The last message is the Koran. It is what you say, God reveals His Message clearly to all, in all times and places, it is the only way. One of the few surviving languages of those times is Arabic. Latin, language of powerful Roman empire, died (dead language) while Arabic, language spoken by desert tribes was preserved by the Word of God. The last Message of God is completed in Mecca, the City of God, the Kaaba (cube) is His House. Mecca was the place where God spoke to man.

But there are lots of languages from the 5th century that survive:  Greek, Chinese, Irish, Tamil, Hebrew and so on.  What you were asked, in essence, is why the final revelation of God was given only to a handful of desert nomads in a very small corner of the world. If the message was so bloody important, why didn't it also appear in Athens, Anyang, Waterford, Varanasi, Jerusalem, or any of a number of other places with higher literacy rates than Arabia?  Why wouldn't God deliver such a message to everyone , instead of a select few?

I'll give you a hint:  It's has something to do with religions being home-grown and there not being some supreme Lawgiver who gives a rat's charbroiled arse about humanity.

Boru

[LadyForCamus]

Can a man be three separate entities at once, and yet all one thing? Can people come back from the dead after three days? Of all the in-fighting among Christians regarding biblical interpretation, this seems to be the one supernatural claim everyone is happy to accept as literally true. How can a Christian poo-poo at the idea of a talking donkey, but not at the resurrection? Is it because that’s the one claim you HAVE to believe in order to call yourself a Christian? If so, that’s some rather circular reasoning.

Trinity- Yes. I am a father, brother, son, cousin, co-worker, etc.
Resurrection- While there are Lazarus stories in modernity, I don't believe three days of actual complete death could be come back from, unless it's a miracle. Between, people surviving death, people claiming experiences after death, people claiming to see spirits, miracle cures and the scientific of death being a moving target, sure resurrection might be possible. I believe that there's enough subjective belief in supernatural to make the supernatural more than likely.
Talking bushes and donkeys- I see no evidence that it can scientifically happen, but I don't poo-poo at it. I accept that it might not have happened but that it could have.

Yes to be considered a Christian one has to (I believe there might be one or two denominations that don't) believe Christ died and was resurrected in some way.

Okay, so, resurrection after three days of actual complete death you accept is scientifically impossible, and would require a miracle. And, you believe that particular miracle did, in fact, happen as described in the Bible. But, talking donkeys and bushes, which are also described in the Bible, and which you also accept as scientifically impossible without a miracle, you do not hold a positive belief that either of those literally happened. Is that an accurate summation of your position? If so, would you mind explaining the method you used to determine which of these claims was likely a true miracle, and which were likely not? In other words, do you have a confidence level of one supernatural claim that is higher than your confidence level in another, and how did you reach those levels?

[LadyForCamus]

Before the revelation of the Qur'an, God revealed other messages to the ancient peoples to their respective languages. So everyone got the warning. The Message of Salvation was already transmitted to those who lived, for those who will live God completes His Final Message with the last Prophet (Muhammad) destined until the end of time and all places (all humanity). The last message is the Koran. It is what you say, God reveals His Message clearly to all, in all times and places, it is the only way. One of the few surviving languages of those times is Arabic. Latin, language of powerful Roman empire, died (dead language) while Arabic, language spoken by desert tribes was preserved by the Word of God. The last Message of God is completed in Mecca, the City of God, the Kaaba (cube) is His House. Mecca was the place where God spoke to man.

But there are lots of languages from the 5th century that survive:  Greek, Chinese, Irish, Tamil, Hebrew and so on.  What you were asked, in essence, is why the final revelation of God was given only to a handful of desert nomads in a very small corner of the world. If the message was so bloody important, why didn't it also appear in Athens, Anyang, Waterford, Varanasi, Jerusalem, or any of a number of other places with higher literacy rates than Arabia?  Why wouldn't God deliver such a message to everyone , instead of a select few?

I'll give you a hint:  It's has something to do with religions being home-grown and there not being some supreme Lawgiver who gives a rat's charbroiled arse about humanity.

Boru

At least someone saw where I was going with that. 😉

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

But there are lots of languages from the 5th century that survive:  Greek, Chinese, Irish, Tamil, Hebrew and so on.  What you were asked, in essence, is why the final revelation of God was given only to a handful of desert nomads in a very small corner of the world. If the message was so bloody important, why didn't it also appear in Athens, Anyang, Waterford, Varanasi, Jerusalem, or any of a number of other places with higher literacy rates than Arabia?  Why wouldn't God deliver such a message to everyone , instead of a select few?

I'll give you a hint:  It's has something to do with religions being home-grown and there not being some supreme Lawgiver who gives a rat's charbroiled arse about humanity.

Boru

At least someone saw where I was going with that. 😉

I figured that since SOG wasn't, someone should. 

Boru

[tackattack]

Trinity- Yes. I am a father, brother, son, cousin, co-worker, etc.
Resurrection- While there are Lazarus stories in modernity, I don't believe three days of actual complete death could be come back from, unless it's a miracle. Between, people surviving death, people claiming experiences after death, people claiming to see spirits, miracle cures and the scientific of death being a moving target, sure resurrection might be possible. I believe that there's enough subjective belief in supernatural to make the supernatural more than likely.
Talking bushes and donkeys- I see no evidence that it can scientifically happen, but I don't poo-poo at it. I accept that it might not have happened but that it could have.

Yes to be considered a Christian one has to (I believe there might be one or two denominations that don't) believe Christ died and was resurrected in some way.

Okay, so, resurrection after three days of actual complete death you accept is scientifically impossible, and would require a miracle. And, you believe that particular miracle did, in fact, happen as described in the Bible. But, talking donkeys and bushes, which are also described in the Bible, and which you also accept as scientifically impossible without a miracle, you do not hold a positive belief that either of those literally happened. Is that an accurate summation of your position? If so, would you mind explaining the method you used to determine which of these claims was likely a true miracle, and which were likely not? In other words, do you have a confidence level of one supernatural claim that is higher than your confidence level in another, and how did you reach those levels?

I do hold a positive belief in miracles. Burning bush, talking donkey, water from a rock, miraculous healing, walking on water, controlling storms, etc. I do have a confidence level in the resurrection miracle  over most of the other miracles. Most of that is probably due to indoctrination and bias. In practical application though, the epistimology of a miracle is equivalent, I just might defend some with more ferocity as the likelihood of alternative explanations rises. The magnitude of the personal demonstrable miracles you are pointing at in the bible, I have not personally witnessed. I do claim that I believe that X, or I understand why X; but not that I know X. I tend to think about how things would be if it were true as a better way to get to further truths; rather than the skeptics view of assuming nothing or that the premise is false.

[GrandizerII]

Trinity- Yes. I am a father, brother, son, cousin, co-worker, etc.

That's more a description of modalism, not the Trinity (at least not the mainstream Catholic conception of it). The Trinity doctrine states that there are three persons to the Christian God (what this means is not exactly clear, but it's not meant to mean that you have only one "God-person" who plays three divine roles).

[tackattack]

@Grandizer no illustration is perfect. Nicene Trinitarian beliefs may seem modalistic, but they're not. It's not 1+1+1=3 it's 1x1x1=1. I personally fall closer to the side of polytheistic interpretation rather than a modalism. It's commonly described as one God-Head (A title- like my name) with 3 persons (Father, Son, Spirit).

[GrandizerII]

@Grandizer no illustration is perfect. Nicene Trinitarian beliefs may seem modalistic, but they're not. It's not 1+1+1=3 it's 1x1x1=1. I personally fall closer to the side of polytheistic interpretation rather than a modalism. It's commonly described as one God-Head (A title- like my name) with 3 persons (Father, Son, Spirit).

It's not just simply that no illustration is perfect when it comes to describing the mainstream Nicene Trinity doctrine. It's that no illustration, in this case, is adequate enough to help anyone understand the "mysterious logic" behind the Trinity. Nicene Trinitarian beliefs are not modalism; the mainstream Trinity is "three [actual] Persons in one God (being)" not "one Person in one God with three divine Roles". Modalism is considered a heresy in mainstream Christianity, the same with what you're describing as well (God is a family of three Gods).

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Trinity- Yes. I am a father, brother, son, cousin, co-worker, etc.

That's more a description of modalism, not the Trinity (at least not the mainstream Catholic conception of it). The Trinity doctrine states that there are three persons to the Christian God (what this means is not exactly clear, but it's not meant to mean that you have only one "God-person" who plays three divine roles).

'God is like a shamrock:  small, green, and split three ways.' - Eric Idle, Nuns On The Run

Boru

[tackattack]

I would wager a bet that if you called the average Western Christian a polytheist, they'd be confused and offended. Perhaps it's just lack of refined teaching or exposure to other perspectives or beliefs.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible...We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect;... "
This is not modalism. 3 beings (in relation) one nature (in essence). It's not like it's that difficult of a concept. Using a more ironic example than the shamrock, let's use Cerberus. One dog, three dog heads; each independent but in essence one. Similar to Tertullian and Aquinas thoughts on the subject.