Why Doesn't God Explain In Person?

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 guess what I'm saying is why appear only to a select few? If you only demonstrate your awesome power to a few goatherds in the desert, you are in danger of being forgotten about. Even if you are remembered, how are you going to distinguish your claims from those of all the other made up religions that have flourished in the meantime, who all claim their god(s) did miraculous things in antiquity.Now if he had stuck with things like they were in the OT, then we'd all have know where we were, for three thousand years. As you say, people chose to obey or ignore his laws, and he acted acordingly. It made a kind of horrible sense.But the way things are are very different. The clamour of religions reporting miraculous incidents from antiquity is so loud and so varied, it appears to me to be nothing more than the scared noise of humans contemplating infinity and not liking what they see.

Sure its hypothetical, but I'd still get a kick out of seeing the TV coverage!I'm probably being dense here, but I'm not quite getting your point yet. You are saying that it would be a bad thing if everyone became Muslim if God appeared and said that was the right religion, I think. I just want to know why.Lets put to one side the fact that in this modern age we probably wouldn't believe God if he did appear, and instead think he was a hologram sent by the American government.

About the idea of projecting God as a hologram...Read the novel 'Al Mahdi' by AJ Quinnell. Maybe it's the source of the idea.

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.

I think you have a valid point here.As a matter of fact, why don't any Muslims, Hindus, etc. seem to come around and promote/defend their beliefs?Would anyone else be interested in hearing their views?

Thank you for the references Arachnophilia.I will certainly take a close look at them.BTW, why do you say: Why do you think Christ undoubtedly did?

Circumcision was a sign/symbol representing the old covenant. Water baptism is the sign/symbol representing the new covenant.

Arachnophilia said: Ooops, I was picking Islam at random too. I was just confused that you were saying that if a God actually set up his stall and told us which was the right religion this would be a bit of a problem. I think I get it now though: you are saying that the choice to believe, and what you choose to believe is an important power to leave in the hands of people.That makes sense. But the problem I have with it is that I'd question whether people really get much of a choice about what they believe in. By no means does the religion you are raised in necessarily become your lifelong faith, because people born Christian end up believing in Amazonian tree-spirits every once in a while. However, the religion in which you are raised certainly has a significant influence on your lifelong spiritual outlook and beliefs. So if your belief, in many instances, chooses you, rather than the other way round, how is that helpful?

Would you agree that teaching morality to young kids is a good idea?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Will you bear with me if I just preface my reply with a bit of whimsy? Because humans are visual animals, and because your avatar is a big ape, and because you (Jar) often do these fantastic little Socratic dialogue thingys with people, I have this picture of this wise old Orangutang typing away at the other end of the wires - perhaps from a zoo or jungle outpost with satellite link-up. Is this in fact the case?In answer to your question, I think that it is a fantastic idea for children to be given moral awareness. Personally, I think it would be a grand idea if young children (3+, I guess) were properly introduced to the idea if morality through carefully structured philosophy classes in the same way that they do maths and language. Unfortunately, this hardly happens at all in this country, apart from when the damn hippies are let loose on the kids. I dunno about the states.

Actually, that's just me. It was a bad hair day.Back towards topic.So regardless of which religion someone is born into, isn't it helpful if at least initially there is some moral training?Please understand that I also include any other moral training whether religion based or atheistic.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Have I mentioned that I've always pictured you as a bunny? This is an opinion that I have had since my first philosophy class back in the good old days... more like 2 years ago. I strongly believe that little kids should be taught how to think, not what to think like the way religion is structured.If kids are taught why certain things are wrong, we wouldn't have had the civil rights issue in the first place.Would you rather know what button A does rather than just being told that if you push button A you will be able to watch tv? If they explain to you that button A turns the tv on, you will be able to figure out on your own that if you push another button you will touch on some other functions that you previously did not know. However, if you were told just told that button A will make you happy, how is that a motivation to explore other buttons?I strongly believe that religious based morals are handicaped because they don't allow much room for modifications when new situations are encountered.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

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.