One of my friends is called Gudrow, and we’ve always called him Gudd. It sounded funny at first, but nobody actually minded too much about it. But just a few weeks ago, he was in a stupid bike accident and lost his left eye… He is getting better now, but this is not the point. My friend is an easy-going person and takes it quite well. As he likes the Native-American history, he thought about a funny nickname for himself. And he came upon “Eye Missin’ Gudrow”. Just a name, right? It stroke me though, just some days ago when he sent me an e-mail signed as …“Eye M. Gudd.”
I am not in position to question his innuendos, but that made me recall a topic I’ve read a while ago on this here forum. There were some (13) pages of a thread called “Evidence there is no god”. Interesting topic and a nice discussion with arguments and personal beliefs and all that. So this question arose in my mind: what would happen if someone claimed a name like the one above, and mean it? I mean he (or she) could claim to be god, the son (or daughter) or some other relative … But what would be the implications? What would be the impact on (this) society, nowadays? Could that be evidence there is a God, or just the contrary? Would this person be regarded as psychotic, crazy or delusional? What if he/she (or He/She) would be THE SAVIOUR?
I don’t know, maybe this is a useless hypothetical discussion, but if you want, feel free to comment on that Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Quick clarification. Are you talking about an actual human incarnation or a divinely inspired prophet?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
I'm talking about WHAT IF. So you might discuss the version you think is more interesting, or both Nevertheless, I think the "actual human incarnation" would be more "difficult" to deal with ...
suminonA
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Wll, they're both fascinating hypotheticals, and each would provide unique challenges and dilemmas. For instance, the pure in-your-face power of a miracle-performing deity in flesh would be a lot easier to deal with in different ways. After seeing him/her (it?) ressurect the World Trade Center, let's say, it wouldn't be hard at all to instantly prove their divinity. so in that respect, it's easy. Yes there would be skeptics, but in the face of such overwhelming evidence, that type of doubt would melt away over weeks. Eventually, presuming this holy incarnation travels across the globe, the VAST majority of people on Earth would flock to be a part of it. I know I would, and I'm an agnostic/atheist. How many atheists have you heard say something like, "I'd love to beleive in <insert religion>, but I don't because..." when they express why they don't belive in a divine power?
So in fact, I think that the inspired prophet would actually be much more difficult to deal with. That leads to a whole lot more potential for conflict; it's the kind of controversy that could tear nations apart. As more people came down on either side of the argument, the stakes would grow higher, and the more heated it would become. Religious issues have always been the most contentious, and the rise of an earnest, well meaning prophet in the era of globalization would have the potential to be the most divisive issue in the history of mankind.
Re-reading what I've written, I realize that I'm making some subconcious assumptions that I should explain. It hit me when I realized that the primary example of the incarnation - JC - was not met with total acceptance. Doh. I came to the conclusion I did because I imagined a divine being on earth that was somewhat...less judicious with their power than Christ was. The problem of this hypothetical, really, is that we have no way of knowing what actions a god in human skin would take. And so much of how the world would accept (or reject) such a being is dependant on how that being conducts itself.
While I'm busy stating the obvious: assassination attempts, riots, doomsday predictions, fire and brimstone. All that fun stuff.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Nice points you’ve made. Thanks. So let’s go on.
[Note: I liked your "<insert variable value>" idea But instead of using <insert God> all over the next lines, I’ll put “Deity” with the same intention]
My personal view on the “actual incarnation” hypothesis is that such a being would really KNOW how to conduct itself, and will not do it as the VAST majority of people on Earth would expect. We (as Earth-bound humans) are so self-centred that we already have expectations of an eventual SAVIOUR. We need PROOF, (in-your-face miracle-performing as you put it ) and we can find a lot of examples of “task” for it to perform. But maybe those tasks are meaningless against the REAL power of the miracles that it would bring. Something like Universal Tolerance, Instant Access to Knowledge and things like that… Would such miracles convince anyone?
On the other hand, the inspired prophet I think would be discarded very fast. Being “in the middle” of it, on one side the Deity, on the other the man(kind), the poor prophet has no chance. If he/she is to bring any proof of “the direct connection to the Deity”, it would be required once again to perform some miracle (this time not self-powered but in the name of the Deity) If the prophet won’t do it (as it may be the choice of the Deity, based on the non-relevance of the task), the prophet is dismissed (if not worse). If the prophet does it, there will be some wise guys to “clearly see” that the prophet is the Deity itself, and it is trying to deceive them, for it may be afraid (!) of them (why else not admit it’s real nature?), so it’s no good either. The results are obvious I think.
I say in our era there is no room for prophets (as real as they might be). We are too cynical/sceptical to accept something like that. That’s why I think more of the other “possibility”. What if that incarnated Deity would come, and claim: “I am omnipotent, but that means I can do whatever I want, not whatever you want!”
So my next question is: what would the incarnated Deity “need” to do, to convince you (whoever wants to answer) that it is the real one? What would you do to convince others, if you were the Deity?
More hypothetical questions …
suminonA
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I just don't think the prophet, who is divinely inspired, would be left high and dry by the patron deity. Presumably this deity has a goal in mind that the prophet is intended to acheive. It would make sense then (although religion only sometimes does) that the prophet would be provided with the means to accomplish the task at hand.
In the interest of moving this discussion forward though, what would the incarnation need to do? In my case, and I think most skeptic's cases, the proof would come from accomplishing a feat that would have previously considered impossible. The big problem , as I see it, would be proving, on a mass scale (assuming this is the intent of said incarnation) that the impossible had actually occurred. What this means is that while our normal modes of communication would be effective in spreading the news (the "gospel" you might say, if you were into really lame humor) actual converts might require something a bit more personal. Any decent stage magician can pull off pretty perplexing pieces of illusion, and don't even get me started about miracle "healings" via televangilism.
We are infinitely more skeptical than our ancestors were. This isn't really a bad thing; skepticism and guile, in a certain amount, are qualities necessary for survival in a modern world. But, faced with the ludicrously unlikely, most of us will rationalize the event as the work of a charlatan, even beyond our individual abilities to properly explain it. Seeing a woman walk across a pond on TV, for example, would intruige the hell out of me, but I'd immediately find explanations for what I've seen. Wires, mirrors, underwater supports, computer graphics, there are so many ways today to explain such a thing.
The task of overcoming that skepticism would take a while, but it's progress would be exponential. I think we can agree that in the face of such an event, the majority of the population would follow. The most interesting aspect would be to see who held out. What kinds of people would be most likely to resist?
Anyone with a good idea - especially demographics that one wouldn't expect to think about - should throw in their two cence.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Dear Juxtapose,
Thank you for participating in this … “debate”. Apparently the name of the thread didn’t catch the eye. I mean I rather believe that people didn’t enter because of the name than not posting because of the lame idea in the thread
As we didn’t find a point to disagree here, I could just keep posting my “hypothetical questions” and have your answers for moving this discussion forward… But I suspect this isn’t the spirit of Hatrack Forum, where people “fight hard and to the end for their beliefs”.
Or maybe you have some questions, that I could address and start some more debate
Just in case, another question: Do you think we (as Earth bound humans) NEED a Deity to come (especially in the incarnated form) in order to “solve our problems”? Or shortly: Do we need a SAVIOUR?
suminonA.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Hey, there are some questions here that might go on the Ultimate Question Quest thread ...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)