A More Perfect Solution

Comments on a recent blog post of mine prompted me to do a thought experiment. Seeing as how the Bible has been fragmented, pieced together, translated, interpreted and altered is there a better way than the written word for god to have disseminated what could be considered the most important information in the history of the world? I think so.

I’m running with the standard model of the Biblical god for this example meaning he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipresent. He is perfect and unconstrained by time and space. Consider this:

When a child reaches the age of 12 he or she is considered by god to have the capacity to understand the concept of his existence and Jesus’ sacrifice for their eternal salvation. On each child’s 12th birthday, god visits them in a vision. During this vision, the child is locked in a trance state where no stimuli other than god can be experienced. In the vision, god reveals to each child that he’s their Heavenly father, he created them because he loves them, and that they have the choice to accept Jesus’ gift of salvation. He reveals this in their native tongue without using parables or vague language. When the vision ends, the child is released from the trance state feeling refreshed.

At this point, the child has the choice to use his or her free will to either accept the vision as truth or reject the vision as a delusion. They have the choice to accept the gift of salvation or reject it as nonsense.

Here’s the rub: the vision is the same no matter the culture, language, or dialect of the child. A child in India can compare their vision to that of a child in Zimbabwe, Chile or Canada and the description will be identical. Some will accept this for the miracle that it is and rejoice. Others will consider it coincidence or mass hysteria and dismiss it out of hand. Others may take years to decide what they think but no matter what the message was clear, concise, and cannot be misinterpreted.

Would that not be (at the very least) a better solution than a vague book full of magical stories and parables? It certainly beats the telephone game of the oral tradition.

Here’s the question: what problems do you see with this approach?



  1. That’s actually pretty good. The message being exactly the same, verbatim, there’s little room for doubt.
    It should happen either exactly  on the day the child turns 12, or the day after, for everyone. God would’ve picked one of these two options, and repeat it for everyone (so, if he picks the date of the 12th birthday, then everyone would have the vision on that day, if he picks the other, everyone will have it the day following the 12th birthday.) 

    I’m sure believers will object with the usual free will crap. But, when you consider what’s at stake (IF this god is real and there’s a hell), then it behooves a being of love to make himself better known to humankind. By leaving it merely to a horrible book full of contradictions, and a host of (often mutually contradicting) messengers, it looks as if he gets a kick out of having us fumble in confusion, which leads to inevitable eternal torment. 
    Even with a vision like the one you describe, I’m sure there’d still be people that will reject the whole thing. Yes, there’ll be a LOT less people rejecting him, but, he’d still get to roast some souls in hell. At least he’d look like he made a good effort worthy of his powers and worthy of his alleged love to keep his “children” from such eternal torment. As it stands, this god character looks like a sadistic monster who enjoys subjecting humans to eternal torture.

  2. @CoderHead – Because it hasn’t already happened over things much less easily bastardized than dreams and visions. Right… I find it hilarious that you’re arguing in an anti-theistic vein but arguing in favor of visions over printed media. I’ll be checking up on the rest of the responses.

  3. @striemmy – You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I’m proposing a consistent, shared vision to every person on the planet at a specific time, in a specific manner, with a specific message that can be verified across all cultures and languages. I’m not talking about a “prophet” receiving a “vision” and telling everybody it’s the truth and that they just have to trust him. Develop some reading comprehension and try again.

  4. @CoderHead – Consistency exists inside the mind and is easily shattered in interpretation and communication. You haven’t bothered to run your own concept through a torture test and I’m waiting patiently on someone to take a crack at it. Insults eh? Don’t tell me you’re getting upset. Welcome to Xanga.

  5. @striemmy – That was complete nonsense. “Consistency exists inside the mind and is easily shattered?” Don’t flatter yourself that you could upset me, I have yet to hurl any insults. Again, your persecution complex shines through.

  6. @CoderHead – Are you telling me that the same thoughts and ideas are expressed the same way by different people? I suppose you’ve just never been to a museum or weren’t introduced to the arts at any point in your lifetime. You know, the arts, the entire set of fields that hinges singularly upon the fact that people, even when they have the same thing in their heads, express it in manners that are entirely inconsistent with eachother. Maybe you don’t know. Maybe you’re ignorant to whorfianism. Maybe the reason you declined to respond the last time was because you had no rebuttal for what I had to say on this matter. =) 

    Because implying that I lack comprehension in reading and have to increase my level of it to discuss on your level isn’t insulting. You have a problem with word definitions, don’t you? Just like strawman. Hey, lol, do you want me to go ahead and pluck another definition and do that quote thing again? It seems like that stifled you pretty well last time. 
    Nope, I have a better idea. =)

  7. @striemmy – Art is subjective. You’re one post away from my ignore list.

    The art in museums reflects an artist’s personal ideas and perceptions and are, by definition, most meaningful to the artist. That someone else can recognize the artist’s conceptualization and intent is irrelevant. I’m not talking about an abstract concept like sculptures or paintings. I’m talking about a shared experience across all of mankind. I’ve never suggested that some people won’t dissent – it says so in my original post – but the vision and message of which I’m speaking is consistent across all cultures and languages, which is what I’ve been saying since the original post, and obviously you don’t have the ability to grasp that.

  8. IRIT you’re one of the most well-known and cited trolls on xanga, coming a close second to loborn. I hope you’re not seriously coming at me like that. 

    @CoderHead – Ok. Talk to you in 1 week.