Why Doesn't God Explain In Person?

a good point. i don't know.

Hi Arachnophilia,Genesis 17:10 says: The New Testament doesn't specifically state that it is the symbol or sign of the New Covenant but, Matthew 28:18-20 says: Emphasis mine.After Peter spoke to the crowd during Pentecost regarding Christ, the crowd responded (Acts 2:37): Peter answers (Acts 2:38):

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

They are pointless except that they fulfill the clear command of Christ?

Do you mean this Paul: [Paul speaking in Romans 2:28-29.]?

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

The Apostles seem to have understood as they proceeded to have believers baptised as evidenced in Acts 2:41: Emphasis mine.Also, after hearing Philip preach in Samaria the believers responded by being baptised (Acts 8:12): This trend continues and I can quote more verses if you like.From a command which you claim is not clear, the followers of Christ seem to have understood it.

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.

Yes, I agree. Now I'm going to try to explain my position a bit - but I'm not sure if the explanation is going to have any relevance to your line of questioning.For most adults, I think "don't do that because the ten commandments say you can't" (morality from authority?) is a bit shaky. Although the absoluteness of the commands gives clarity, it doesn't offer any guidance when the situation to which they are being applied is complicated. So I'd emphasise moral awareness rather than the strict adherence to moral strictures. It might be a bit different for people who have a hard time grasping the complexities of a moral situation - maybe young children and those with learning difficulties? Maybe then you have to compromise the ideal, and try to get them to do the right thing through fear of authority.So I imagine it depends what kind of moral teaching we are talking about - but on the whole, I think that any old way you can convince members of a society to act with a modicum of respect for each other is probably a good thing.(edited for spelling badness)This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-19-2004 05:38 AMThis message has been edited by Tusko, 11-19-2004 05:39 AM

A bunny? Oh - I see. No, he's just a friend. His name's Jose. I would have used a photo of me, but he's just a hell of a lot more photogenic than I am. Don't worry, he doesn't mind (I think he's actually rather flattered).As for the rest of your response, I think I may have just said exactly the same thing in my response to Jar. Ah well.

I completely agree. Morality from Authority will always be limited and usually ineffective. So now finally I hope we can tie this slightly OT excursion back into the thread topic.Is it possible that GOD does not explain in person because He realizes that Morality from Authority is not the best basis for adult behaviour?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Wow, yes - that makes sense. The fact that God doesn't openly pull
rank means that we have to work out the what's right and wrong for
ourselves.(Stunned pause while I try to rally my thoughts.)Although there's a rightness to that answer, something doesn't quite fit for me.1) Over the past few thousand years, there have been a lot of different religions out there with different moral frameworks. The Abramic ones are all much of a muchness, but there have been some others that are seriously out of whack on things like human sacrifice. If the genuine supernatural deity or deities don't offer any guidance at all, then we could be happily carrying on doing something that is very displeasing to them, simply because we had arrived at our morality through either obeying a spurious authority, or because we had followed some kind of "self-evident" reasoning process.2) Doesn't the various holy books just confuse things unneccesarily by LOOKING like they are offering morality from authority?Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree here?

Jar,This sounds like you are conceiving God as a human type person?
I'm very doubtful of that and even more doubtful of the value of arguments based on that. For example I work with children and though adults differ in some ways significantly from children there are strong similiarities. For example a group of boys when caught in some mischief of one sort or another will usually agree that a mischief has been done and even that there are guilty parties... the OTHER guys. The other guys either started it or told them to do it or did it, but each of the boys will solemnly swear that they didnt' do it, or they only did a little bit after the other guys started it, etc. The difference between boys and Bush and Blair and other leaders are that men have much better vocabularies and much more elaborate rationales and excuses and their actions have more extensive and deadly consequences.But what if I told my boss, or the parents of the children that are in my care that I don't intervene in their disputes or don't try to help them solve their problems in construtive ways? I'd rightly be fired. It's my job to make sure disputes don't dissolve into violence, that they begin to listen and negotiate and work to postive solutions and that they develop skills and understanding.Look at religion, look at religion in the USA, or Isreal, or Northern Ireland, and on and on. If God were a human like us, then he is seriously neglecting his responsibilities and should be fired.An alternative might be that God is not a big human being who speaks 100,000 languages even though Hebrew was his native tongue. God may not be a king, president, designer, or engineer. The concept of explanation is a human concept. I seriously doubt the source of the universe outside of it's manifestation as human beings has any notion of explanation nor that the source has made a decision to withhold anything including a explanation on any grounds. That is just too anthropomorphic for me.lfen

quote:

---

An alternative might be that God is not a big human being who speaks 100,000 languages even though Hebrew was his native tongue. God may not be a king, president, designer, or engineer. The concept of explanation is a human concept. I seriously doubt the source of the universe outside of it's manifestation as human beings has any notion of explanation nor that the source has made a decision to withhold anything including a explanation on any grounds. That is just too anthropomorphic for me.

---

This brings to mind 3 possible scenarios.1 God doesn't exist and we are all just the product of random actions in an uncaring universe.2 God doesn't care what we do or think. He just watches us screw up and laughs (I beleive it has already been suggested that he is taking the piss)3 God is so far above us that any contemplation of his motives or reasons are completely meaningless so we are really wasting our time trying.Does any one (or all) of these come close to the meaning that you were aiming at conveying? PY