Why Doesn't God Explain In Person?

because that would make choice irrelevant.it seems me that important foundation of religion, and man's relationship with god(s), is that we're not REALLY sure there's anything out there.i do not feel there is one true religion, even as a christian myself. i think the are all flawed human opinions of something we can't even begin to fathom, if it does indeed exist. i don't think any of the religions are neccessarily right.but it seems to me that for whatever reason, it is best that god more or less stays out of it for the time being. i think of it like teaching a child to swim. at some point you have to let go.

well, it's not uncertainty per se. it's the difference between faith and knowledge. and for some reason or another, faith is important. (unless, of course, god doesn't exist) if choices were obviously correct, we wouldn't have to make them. they'd be meaningless. do you believe sun will rise tomorrow? do you believe things fall if you drop them? how important is your choice to believe these things? even a theist cannot prove it, though. it's a strength of faith issue. some christians believe more strongly than others. some think god cares intensely, others do not. to me, the mentality of god caring intimately about what we do doesn't make sense. oops, i sinned. oh wait i've already been forgiven. now i have to guilt myself a lot, and it's ok if i just never do it again. i've seen christians go through guilt-cycle after guilt-cycle. i've done it myself. i don't see the point in it.if god loves us, and forgives us, then god loves and forgives us. and if you believe he requires something of us, then just try to make good choices in life. and if you mess up, you mess up. actually, you're not too likely to get answers out of me that make sense. for two reasons really:1. faith is not a rational thing. it doesn't really make any logical sense sometimes.2. i've been in the process of questioning and revising my beliefs for the past few years now. i'm not exactly sure what i believe at the moment.

not reality, per se. just contradicting the text of the rest of the bible in a way that doesn't make sense to me.for instance, paul says that christ established a new covenant, and that holding to the law while believing in christ is pointless. he argue against circumcision as well. but christ said that he did not come to destroy the law. paul also at one point says that it's shameful for a man to wear his hair long, which christ undoubtedly did. he also contradicts the old testament in a number of places. he advises against marriage and sex, when god's first commandment to his children is "be fruitful and multiply."i feel john is out of place because it seems to be more of a symbolic rendering of the events. sayings not by christ, but having christ talk about himself in a way one camp of the early christian church would have. he says things about himself that when read in the context of the ot sound rather blasphemous.if you wanna discuss this at any further length, please do start a new thread. they were!

regarding the covenant:

quote:

---

Hbr 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

---

(did paul write hebrews? i forget)now, this would take a bit of explaining. paul argues in the book of galations that christ does not invalidate the law. but the statements he makes in the book contradict the law. for instance, chapter five says, basically, not to get circumcised because then you will be held to the law. (the implication then being that christ frees you from the law) basically, the book is one big weak argument. and we know the other verse:

quote:

---

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

---

i think it's pretty clear that christ means that he's not invalidating the torah or the nevi'im, meaning the laws themselves are still valued. but that he's only fulfilling the prophesies and the promises in the torah and nevi'im. in short, he's not breaking off from judaism, like paul wants to.next:

quote:

---

1Cr 11:14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

---

no, it doesn't.

quote:

---

Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

---

in fact, many other verses in leviticus signal that it is abhorent to sut your hair short. shaving your head bald was a sign of morning.paul parallels this verse with:

quote:

---

1Cr 11:15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

---

i can't much biblical basis for it at the moment, but some really strict orthodox jewish women shave their heads and wear shawls, so that their hair is never seen. some simply cover their hair so only their husbands can see it. this is similar to islamic practice, but i doubt it was in place during biblical times.marriage and sex?1st corinthians 7. (borrowed from skepticsannotatedbible.com, due to eas of use)

quote:

---

1 Cor.7:1 It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

​

1 Cor.7:7-8 For I [Paul] would that all men were even as I myself. ... It is good for them if they abide even as I.

---

quote:

---

Gen.2:18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone: I will make a help-meet for him.

​

Pr.18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.

​

Mt.19:5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave unto his wife.

---

This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-17-2004 01:32 AM

no no, these aren't the choices i'm talking about at all. even in the bible itself when god DOES appear, people still don't always do the right things. i'm simply talking about the choices in what to believe, if anything. if god appeared and held a press conference to a) prove he's god and b) say "sorry, the muslims were right" wouldn't everyone want to be a muslim?the point worth arguing here is if it would be accepted that god is god. and i don't know. it's really a hypothetical, and more of just a backwards explanation for why god doesn't appear now: faith must mean something.but no, i'm talking about us adhering to god's commands like robots if he were to appear. i doubt that would happen.

i'm just saying that choice of what to believe, and the choice to believe at all are important for some reason. no no, i just picked a random religion. insert mormons or jehovah's witnesses or shintoists or buddhists or raeliens or whatever. hahaha yeah probably true.

quote:

---

Lev 19:27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

---

quote:

---

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets

---

i'm not sure if jesus would have been orthodox or not, but i think there's a good chance that he would have followed jewish traditions over roman.

uh, also no.

quote:

---

Mat 3:11 [John the Baptist:] I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me [Jesus] is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:

---

the old covenant was an adherance to the law because god brought the israelites out of egypt. the new covenant is strictly spiritual. water baptism was a TEMPORARY rite of passage, symbolic of the spiritual baptism that would come later. it was never intended for use after jesus, only right before.and the two are in no way contradictory, as paul suggests. you do not lose your spiritual salvation if you get circumcised.

a good point. i don't know.

see, it's a very subtle line here, actually.circumcision is a covenant between god and the children of abraham. if you are not descended from abraham, it doesn't literally apply to you.baptism is not strictly a covenant. there is no contractual agreement. rather, it is very similar to annointing, but also a cleansing ritual. baptism is a reference to god specifically calling us his own. baptism post-jesus is symbolic and spiritual - we are baptised with the holy spirit. the baptism before then was physical - with water.water baptisms today are pointless, jesus has already died for our sins. there is no need for the cleansing.but what PAUL is arguing is that getting circumcised makes you a jew. he's partly right, to become a jew you must get circumcised, and are adopted into god's family that way. but what paul argues is that if you're a jew, you have to be a jew and not a christian. your salvation will by works, holding to law, and not faith. this is a fundamental misunderstanding of judaism: no one is worried abotu salvation. they have a special relationship with god, and try to follow his laws as best the can because of it. there's no threat or reward.he's trying to win potential converts away from judaism and into christianity, while distinctly separating the two, something which cannot actually be done completely. he's also trying to get the message across to his churches that you can't expect to get into heaven just because you have no foreskin on your penis.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 05:00 PM

where? here?

quote:

---

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

---

john the baptist clearly indicates that jesus will be baptising with fire: the holy spirit. it does use a word that implies water, but it's origin is in a word that means to dye or stain. and an alternate definition for the word is overwhelm.no, it's not clear exactly what his command his. especially since we are told about water baptism as a metaphor for spiritual baptism.

quote:

---

Rom 2:25 For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.
Rom 2:26 Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
Rom 2:27 And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?
Rom 2:28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither [is that] circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29 But he [is] a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision [is that] of the heart, in the spirit, [and] not in the letter; whose praise [is] not of men, but of God.

---

this is the same argument he makes in galations, that i was talking about.i should have rephrased my point. he's saying that as a cicumcised person you have to follow the law, but as a spiritually saved person you do not, because you are not a party to that covenant.i don't think his logic is WRONG per se. i'm just making the point that he is against that covenant, and against the law of god, and jesus was not.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-18-2004 06:36 PM

i think christ is the most misunderstood historical figure ever. i think it's obvious from other parts of the new testament that even his own followers misunderstood him.

i'm pretty sure i disagree with this, but give me a day or two to find some good evidence. i'm fairly certain there are several old testament prophets that take similar stances as jesus. amos comes to mind, but i'll find you some quotes.