Why doesn't God just come down and clarify a few things?

Wouldn't that make sense....that God should come down and answer all our questions and tell us what he really wants once and for all? I mean he doesn't have to come here for long, maybe just chill on Earth for a month to answer questions, then go back to heaven once we understand better.

RJay123

He's been and told us a lot of things already. I believe it was 33 years he was here for. What else do you want to know ?

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="natedrummer95"]

that's what the bible is for. It has everything that you need to be saved.

lightleggy

Or the Qur'ran

or the Bhagavad Gita

or the Tanakah

or any other religious text

Not even close to being the oldest..

Maybe God has "come down", but people are being insincere in their efforts to understand it.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="RJay123"]

Wouldn't that make sense....that God should come down and answer all our questions and tell us what he really wants once and for all? I mean he doesn't have to come here for long, maybe just chill on Earth for a month to answer questions, then go back to heaven once we understand better.

teddyrob

He's been and told us a lot of things already. I believe it was 33 years he was here for. What else do you want to know ?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

A few questions, then, out of curiosity:

1. What were Jesus' last words on the cross?

2. To whom did Jesus first appear after his resurrection?

3. How much did Jesus speak about himself?

4. If we wish to be justified, is it by observance of the Law, or by faith that we may be so?

aaronmullan

1. "My god why have you forsaken me. It is finished." or something similar

2. *can't remember*

3. Rarely?

4. *shrugs*

Well, I'm going to have to confess: all four are trick questions.

#1 -

Matthew & Mark: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34)

Luke: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46)

John: "It is finished." (John 19:30)

#2 -

Matthew: Mary Magdeline and another woman named Mary (Matthew 28:1-9)

Mark: Mary Magdeline alone (Mark 16:9) (Earliest manuscripts end at Mark 16:8, however, and do not mention this.)

Luke: Two travelers (Luke 24:13-16)

John: Mary Magdeline alone (John 20:10-16)

#3 -

Matthew, Mark, & Luke: Not very much.

John: Constantly.

#4 -

Luke: Observance of the Law (Luke 10:25-37)

Paul: Faith (Galatians 2:16)

------------

Why do I ask these trick questions? Simple: because if it were the case that the Bible was the one true received text from God himself, one would expect it all to be in perfect harmony. Instead, there are a number of crucial details on which the texts are just plainly not in accordance one bit. This bears all the hallmarks of oral storytelling that likely evolved over the forty years that elapsed between Jesus' death and the writing of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke; John came later). The Jesus depicted in the synoptic gospels is particularly incompatible with the Jesus depicted in John; the two bear practically no resemblance to one another in terms of their focus. Nowhere in the synoptic gospels does Jesus ever make any claims such as that he is the truth and the light and that none come to the father except through him.

In addition to that, Paul's writings and Jesus' teachings are not really in accordance, either. This makes perfect sense, of course, to those who do not assert a divinely inspired Bible: Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, and the gospels had not been written yet, so he, of course, would have no easy access to knowledge about Jesus' sayings or actions. But if we're asserting that his writings, too, are divinely inspired, does it not seem rather strange that he would make no reference to Jesus' miracles, or statements, or indeed anything about Jesus whatsoever other than his resurrection? His writings, like the gospels, bear the hallmarks of someone whose knowledge about Jesus was only vague and secondhand, which poses distinct problems to those who assert the divinely inspired nature of the entire Bible from cover to cover.

For the above reasons, I must question whether those claiming that the Bible is completely divinely inspired have in fact given serious consideration to what the text actually says. The irreconcilability of the text of the gospels, both between each other and with regards to the subsequent epistles, really ought to give most anyone grave doubts about that assertion, I think.

Because he's chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool up in heavenchessmaster1989

And we're just a couple of guys who are up to no good..

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="RJay123"]

Wouldn't that make sense....that God should come down and answer all our questions and tell us what he really wants once and for all? I mean he doesn't have to come here for long, maybe just chill on Earth for a month to answer questions, then go back to heaven once we understand better.

xaos

He's been and told us a lot of things already. I believe it was 33 years he was here for. What else do you want to know ?

That is an easy question. is that all you want to know

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

What if he wants for us to figure it out for ourselves? :P

xaos

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

- Calvin, Calvin & Hobbes

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

- Douglas Adams

[QUOTE="akuma_od3"]

[QUOTE="Xbot_720"] There are several reasons that I can think of, but I'm sure there are more: 1. In 1000 years, people will be asking the same question as you: "why doesn't God come clarify a few things?" God has done this already. His name was Jesus Christ. Mankind tends to forget, misunderstand, and confuse itself on multiple occassions. Xbot_720

Right. And every single Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim and Jewish person on this earth (which none of believe in Jesus) is entirely wrong. Just you are right. With no proof but a 2000 year old book. You seem awfully certain of yourself. Is this perhaps because you were born into your religion. Would you be Hindu if you were born in India? Would you be Bhuddist if you were born in Tibet?

I'd like to know God's thoughts on homosexuality, for starters....

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

Or the Qur'ran

or the Bhagavad Gita

or the Tanakah

or any other religious text

taj7575

Not even close to being the oldest..

I'd like to know God's thoughts on homosexuality, for starters....

RJay123

I'd like to know God's thoughts on homosexuality, for starters....

RJay123

I doubt he'd have those sort of thoughts being God and all pure and stuff. I doubt he even has sex.

He can do that but he will not do that.. because God is perfect and he will not go down here just for us.. I can't tell more about this because it is hard to explain all..

[QUOTE="RJay123"]

I'd like to know God's thoughts on homosexuality, for starters....

sSubZerOo

I thought that only the Torah was supposed to have been divinely inspired? Isn't the rest taught to be, as you said, the words of the men who wrote them?mattbbpl

Most mainstream Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") in tandem with 2 Peter 3:16 (weird coincidence, that) to make the assertion that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament, are divinely inspired. I am actually with you on that: I do not believe that the writers in the New Testament even claimed divine inspiration. 2 Peter was almost assuredly not written by Peter, and similarly 2 Timothy was almost certainly not written by Paul - and even if it was, the word "Scripture" is used in the New Testament (except for that one single time in 2 Peter) to refer strictly to the Torah.

But, given that it is standard Christian doctrine that the entire New Testament was also divinely inspired, that is the assertion that I was replying to.

He can do that but he will not do that.. because God is perfect and he will not go down here just for us.. I can't tell more about this because it is hard to explain all..

CaptRex

He sent his Son and his son was him in human form.

and you already got it, God says its an abomination, the nature's way was a male and a female, since the beginning. I dont have anything against homosexuals, I wont burn one of them or run away from them (well only if they try to do something to me, yeah some already tried :s) But if it was completly ok to be homosexual, then we wouldn't be able to procreate only with a male and a female...lightleggy

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

Just saying...

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I thought that only the Torah was supposed to have been divinely inspired? Isn't the rest taught to be, as you said, the words of the men who wrote them?GabuEx

Most mainstream Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") in tandem with 2 Peter 3:16 (weird coincidence, that) to make the assertion that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament, are divinely inspired. I am actually with you on that: I do not believe that the writers in the New Testament even claimed divine inspiration. 2 Peter was almost assuredly not written by Peter, and similarly 2 Timothy was almost certainly not written by Paul - and even if it was, the word "Scripture" is used in the New Testament (except for that one single time in 2 Peter) to refer strictly to the Torah.

But, given that it is standard Christian doctrine that the entire New Testament was also divinely inspired, that is the assertion that I was replying to.

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

GabuEx

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

[QUOTE="mattbbpl"]I thought that only the Torah was supposed to have been divinely inspired? Isn't the rest taught to be, as you said, the words of the men who wrote them?GabuEx

Most mainstream Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All Scripture is God-breathed") in tandem with 2 Peter 3:16 (weird coincidence, that) to make the assertion that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testament, are divinely inspired. I am actually with you on that: I do not believe that the writers in the New Testament even claimed divine inspiration. 2 Peter was almost assuredly not written by Peter, and similarly 2 Timothy was almost certainly not written by Paul - and even if it was, the word "Scripture" is used in the New Testament (except for that one single time in 2 Peter) to refer strictly to the Torah.

But, given that it is standard Christian doctrine that the entire New Testament was also divinely inspired, that is the assertion that I was replying to.

that's what the bible is for. It has everything that you need to be saved.

natedrummer95

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]and you already got it, God says its an abomination, the nature's way was a male and a female, since the beginning. I dont have anything against homosexuals, I wont burn one of them or run away from them (well only if they try to do something to me, yeah some already tried :s) But if it was completly ok to be homosexual, then we wouldn't be able to procreate only with a male and a female...GabuEx

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

Just saying...

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

teddyrob

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

[QUOTE="akuma_od3"]

Right. And every single Hindu, Bhuddist, Muslim and Jewish person on this earth (which none of believe in Jesus) is entirely wrong. Just you are right. With no proof but a 2000 year old book. You seem awfully certain of yourself. Is this perhaps because you were born into your religion. Would you be Hindu if you were born in India? Would you be Bhuddist if you were born in Tibet?

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

[QUOTE="wstfld"][QUOTE="Xbot_720"] I'm surely no expert on it but I personally believe there will be a judgement on the ignorant in which God will test them in other ways(people who do not know better - i.e. born into buddism) but that is for God to decide. Maybe it will be during revelation in which people can choose NOT to take the mark of the beast and redeem themselves in God's eyes. Or maybe we are born the way we are due to something our spirits did before we became flesh (fyi - your spirit has always existed with God, but you were not always bound in flesh). And as for your assumption to my religious views: I choose to be Chrisitian because it makes the most logicial sense to me.

Xbot_720

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Incidentally, appearing close by those statements are ones declaring that shellfish are an abomination, along with a bunch of other animals, and that no one must sow a field with two different kinds of seed or wear a shirt with two different kinds of thread.

htekemerald

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

Xbot_720

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="teddyrob"]

God wasn't keen on the serpent. He removed its legs.

lightleggy

John (cant remember if it was "john", but im sure im talking about the guy who wrote revelations) wrote revelation in that island because of Godly inspirationlightleggy

Well yes, I suppose that's obviously the one exception.

if a specie can procreate with only 1 gender, then its the way THEY DO IT, but as far as I know, no species procreate male with male, its either male with female or 1 gender alone, but never male with male (correct me if im wrong pls cuz I would really like to know that) and still, WE cant procreate with only 1gender, we need 1 male and 1 female, its the way us HUMANS need to do it, just because some species can reproduce with only 1 male and nothing more does not means that God doesnt see HUMAN homosexuality as an abominationlightleggy

But here's the thing: reproduction is not the only benefit that sex provides. It has been medically shown to reduce stress and blood pressure, increase the effectiveness of one's immune system, increase happiness, and other such things. Humans are not the only ones to have sex for purposes other than reproduction, either; dolphins, to give one example, have also been documented to do the same thing. If we truly were intended to only have sex for reproduction and if any other use of one's sexual organs was bad and something we should not do, then it seems to me rather strange that there would be all that other good stuff that would come along with it.

[QUOTE="Xbot_720"][QUOTE="htekemerald"] Interestingly some snakes still have legs. God didn't do a good job on that one I guess.

htekemerald

Because he's chillin' out, maxin', relaxin' all cool up in heavenchessmaster1989

God does not have to prove anything to YOU. You have to prove yourself to God.Xbot_720

Why? If god really wants all of us to be saved, wouldn't he at least show what faith or belief he accepts so that we will have the chance to follow it?

The same reason Santa doesnt come down your chimney on Christmas Eve.Big_Bad_Sad

[QUOTE="Xbot_720"] God does not have to prove anything to YOU. You have to prove yourself to God.dog64

Why? If god really wants all of us to be saved, wouldn't he at least show what faith or belief he accepts so that we will have the chance to follow it?

[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="Xbot_720"] God does not have to prove anything to YOU. You have to prove yourself to God.Assassinslay

Why? If god really wants all of us to be saved, wouldn't he at least show what faith or belief he accepts so that we will have the chance to follow it?

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]John (cant remember if it was "john", but im sure im talking about the guy who wrote revelations) wrote revelation in that island because of Godly inspirationGabuEx

Well yes, I suppose that's obviously the one exception.

if a specie can procreate with only 1 gender, then its the way THEY DO IT, but as far as I know, no species procreate male with male, its either male with female or 1 gender alone, but never male with male (correct me if im wrong pls cuz I would really like to know that) and still, WE cant procreate with only 1gender, we need 1 male and 1 female, its the way us HUMANS need to do it, just because some species can reproduce with only 1 male and nothing more does not means that God doesnt see HUMAN homosexuality as an abominationlightleggy

But here's the thing: reproduction is not the only benefit that sex provides. It has been medically shown to reduce stress and blood pressure, increase the effectiveness of one's immune system, increase happiness, and other such things. Humans are not the only ones to have sex for purposes other than reproduction, either; dolphins, to give one example, have also been documented to do the same thing. If we truly were intended to only have sex for reproduction and if any other use of one's sexual organs was bad and something we should not do, then it seems to me rather strange that there would be all that other good stuff that would come along with it.

[QUOTE="dog64"]

[QUOTE="Xbot_720"] God does not have to prove anything to YOU. You have to prove yourself to God.Assassinslay

Why? If god really wants all of us to be saved, wouldn't he at least show what faith or belief he accepts so that we will have the chance to follow it?

The Bible is only one religious text, and it's supported mainly by only one religion, Christianity. Here, you are automatically assuming that Christianity is the true faith, hence making the Bible true. But how did you come to that conclusion? What told you that Christianity is the true faith?

So the question still stands. There is no source to go to that pinpoints the true religious faith.

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="natedrummer95"]

that's what the bible is for. It has everything that you need to be saved.

lightleggy

Or the Qur'ran

or the Bhagavad Gita

or the Tanakah

or any other religious text

[QUOTE="lightleggy"][QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

Or the Qur'ran

or the Bhagavad Gita

or the Tanakah

or any other religious text

BumFluff122

We don't need God to come down and clarify things. They are simple really...

even if its not for reproduction, penis are not made to enter in other penis vaginas cant have other vaginas inside, and the anus IS not made to RECEIVE its made to EXPULSE. it is even scientiffically proven that your anus and digestive system gets awfully ravaged with only having anal sex once, the damage made is irreparable, and consequences for it can vary from screwing your capacity to hold your poop for more than 3 minutes to serious anal bleeding and hemorrageslightleggy

Source?

This may be true.. but I don't know a whole lot about it. I'll have to look into it, but you're probably right.. not to mention many of the stories in the bible are adopted from I believe the Sumerian's mythology, and slightly changed to to fit the Jewish culture. There is a word for this behavior.. but I can't really think of it right now. Essentially.. no mythology is entirely original.. a lot of the ideas are taken from other places.EMOEVOLUTION

[QUOTE="lightleggy"]even if its not for reproduction, penis are not made to enter in other penis vaginas cant have other vaginas inside, and the anus IS not made to RECEIVE its made to EXPULSE. it is even scientiffically proven that your anus and digestive system gets awfully ravaged with only having anal sex once, the damage made is irreparable, and consequences for it can vary from screwing your capacity to hold your poop for more than 3 minutes to serious anal bleeding and hemorragesGabuEx

Source?