Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by DaShi
How would you athiest people react?

"I didn't listen to you about Christianity, why am I going to listen to you about Islam?"

*Changes channel*

Oooh, The Price is Right!

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.

My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ?

Looks like it already happened!

[juhani_kahvi]

So why trust science? Scientific theories come and go.

And what's wrong with that? Science does cause one severe problem for you: it makes your beliefs appear silly. However, you are still using a highly advanced computer while sitting in a super-ergonomic massaging chair inside a house that uses phanteo-nuclear-thermo-insulation which alters it's structure according to your mood, and your personal robot just brought you a health sausage developed specially for your stomach. And in the middle of all this, God just remains to be unseen.

Of course science can also be used for "evil", but so what? Same goes for religion.
And as for science changing itself, I cannot see what is the problem. I don't think that learning is bad, and that admitting mistakes is for wussies.

[Alexander's Horse]

God and science are not in conflict.

[Ben Kenobi]

Science does cause one severe problem for you: it makes your beliefs appear silly.

juhani_kavi:

How so? Which passages cause problems for you?

Boris:

Either the prophecy was fulfilled in Isaiah, or by Jesus, but it can't be both.

Jack says the prophecy had to be fulfilled in Isaiah, even though his definition of a prophecy excludes such interpretation. That's what I'm trying to figure out how his definition of a prophecy holds up to scrutiny.

Now, as a matter of history, the prophecy itself was probably invented after the fulfillment and then backed into, like many Biblical prophesies.

Assumes the point at hand, that the Biblical authors would invent such prophecies. Granted, I can't use this as proof of a prophecy without providing extra-biblical evidence of the famine and feast.

I wanted to test Jack's definition of a prophecy by citing this passage. The problem with Jack's definition, is that it does not permit him to go back and say that this prophecy was fulfilled in the OT. Therefore it cannot have been fulfilled in the NT, since he rules out the use of one book to fulfill the other.

Secondly, there is an artificial division of the OT, since parts of the OT were written at different dates. Therefore, a prophecy in one part of the OT could, by Jack's definition, be fulfilled in another part of the OT, written much later.

But your saying Jack can't cite this as an example is a cop out to avoid explaining how, according to the infallible Bible, Jesus was fulfilling a prophecy that was, according to the infallible Bible, already fulfilled.

True. You assume that the Isaiah prophecy was completely fulfilled in Isaiah. Sometimes what happens is that a portion of the prophecy can be fulfilled, and then completely fulfilled, by Christ.

I'll be back later, to go over the resurrection.

[Angelo Scotto]

Originally posted by juhani_kahvi
However, now a great part of mankind has developed to a stage where the biblical "crude" explanations actually DON'T make any sense anymore.

DON'T make any sense?
wasn't Kantian concept of morality matching incredibly well with Christian one? and wasn't Descartes metaphysical theory fully compatibile with Christian religious basis?
Concepts in Bible make a lot of sense (IMHO),is the literal interpretation of it that must be refreshed up a bit (always IMHO)

makes your beliefs appear silly [...] God just remains to be unseen.

I don't know if is more silly to believe in God or to reject the existance of a being necessarily out of experience just because it can't be found in experience...

Originally posted by obiwan18
Not quite. The Bible was written as an excellent historical testimony into the workings of God on the lives of men. You can see this in the historical sections of the bible, where the historian will leave out information not relevant to understanding the nature of God, areas that God does not play a big role in someone's life.

I think there's not a great difference with my previous post: i don't think it is historically accurate because it was not its aim also. Bible is not an history handbook.

Originally posted by obiwan18
So adults way back when were stupid and dull?

In the same sense we were stupid and dull when started learning things in school, yes, that's my opinion;
mankind was moving first steps in the "realm of knowledge" and it had obviously a lot of things to learn.

Originally posted by obiwan18
That's why aliens had to have built the Pyramids, because obviously they were too stupid to have figured things out for themselves.

Pyramids were built by ancient egyptians, i believe.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Today, we are incredibly arrogant, but what astonishes me is the amount of knowledge we have lost over time. How can we judge what people knew, without a full record?

What knowledge we have lost? during the middle-ages western civilization lost a lot of knowledge but mankind (middle-east and far-east civilizations) continued to accumulate it.

Look, we (intended as mankind) discovered a lot of things, looking back one could notice that it was an incredible task, and requested several centuries (if not millennia).
If thinking that the knowledge acquired during this process make us more advanced (always as mankind) than we ever have been in past is arrogance, yes, i'm really arrogant and probably, people in the future will be even more arrogant.

Originally posted by obiwan18
Faith means that you trust God with your life based on the assurances provided by scripture.
God, fortunately, does not expect us to believe in his existence through faith alone.

Looking at 1 Corinthians 15, we see that without the resurrection, we have nothing, no concrete evidence that the God that exists is the Christian God.

It depends from what is your definition of reason, mine, for sure influenced by philosophy, is what propels science and philosopy (what Vatican calls "natural reason"), it and faith are not at all mutual exclusive but they're also well distincted as Vatican noticed:
There exists a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards their source, but also as regards their object. With regard to the source, because we know in one by natural reason, in the other by divine faith.
[...]
Based upon God's testimony and enjoying the supernatural assistance of grace, faith is of an order other than philosophical knowledge which depends upon sense perception and experience and which advances by the light of the intellect alone.

Notice the "which (natural reason) depends upon sense perception and experience": exactly the point made by Kant.
So, i repeat, metaphysics can't be reached using reason (natural reason), i think so and i'm not the only one.

Originally posted by Spiffor
I have just read a summary of the Muslim Apocalypse, and at some point, Jesus comes from heaven on the Muslim's side, and tells all Christians to convert to Islam.

a similar thing could happen just during the apocalypse...
Anyway i'm not too concerned, the source is a bit biased... just another example of a good PR

Originally posted by Spiffor
My question is :
If God (Jesus) popped up on Earth and say "go convert to Islam", how would you religious people react ?

Well, Christian religion is too different from Islam, so a similar fact could happen only if Jesus changed his mind, but since, for definition, God should be perfect and out-of-time a similar thing is simply logically impossible... that guy is an imposter!

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
He didn't have to ask Jews for that as it was clear they were the "chosen people" but what made any of the others think they are the chosen ones?

I think it's a cardinal point of christian religion: the universality of the message, Jesus told explicitely to spread the message to all creatures, let me search a bit:
yes, exact words are:"Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature." So he can't pop up and ask something about chosen ones because, from the christian point of view, a similar concept simply doesn't exist (another point which IMHO make a lot of sense in christian religion: it underlined men equality one millennium and several centuries before illuminism).

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack says the prophecy had to be fulfilled in Isaiah, even though his definition of a prophecy excludes such interpretation. That's what I'm trying to figure out how his definition of a prophecy holds up to scrutiny.

I don't see why this is causing confusion.

I did not present Isaiah 7:14 as a successful prophecy. I presented it as a BOGUS prophecy. In fact, it fails several tests, not just one:

Firstly, the claim that this was a prophecy of Jesus is false. It's quite evident from the context that it was a "prophecy" of the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This was supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the author had any knowledge of the future birth of Jesus and intended the prophecy to relate to him!

Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. And the whole tale could be fiction anyhow.

Thirdly, there's no independent confirmation that Jesus fits either. We don't know if he actually WAS born of a virgin, and he was called Jesus, not Immanuel (except by those who wished to link him with this "prophecy").

If Christians wish to argue that the Bible is true "because of the fulfilled prophecies", then surely they need to provide evidence to those who believe the Bible is fiction that predictions actually were made and later fulfilled! Why is this so difficult to grasp?

If you admit that there are no independently checkable examples of successful prophecies, then why make the claim that prophecies confirm the truth of the Bible? If I write a novel in which a character in chapter 3 makes a prediction that comes true in chapter 7: does this confirm that my novel is fact rather than fiction?

[juhani_kahvi]

How so? Which passages cause problems for you?

A lot of. But we don't even have to go there. The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist. In the same way we might say that science has also come to the conclusion that ghosts and unicorns do not exist.
It has not been PROVEN, but nothing has, since the concept of proving does not even exist in the literal sense. However, as long as no evidence of god exists, there is no point believing that it does.

Anyway i'm not too concerned, the source is a bit biased...

Your's isn't?

DON'T make any sense? wasn't Kantian concept of morality matching incredibly well with Christian one? and wasn't Descartes metaphysical theory fully compatibile with Christian religious basis? Concepts in Bible make a lot of sense (IMHO),is the literal interpretation of it that must be refreshed up a bit (always IMHO)

Don't change the topic. We were talking about Genesis and the Tower of Bable and the like. Read some earlier posts if you forgot.

I don't know if is more silly to believe in God or to reject the existance of a being necessarily out of experience just because it can't be found in experience...

Why in the name of dog should anyone believe in something that cannot be detected on any level?
"cannot be detected on any level" = "cannot be found in experience" = "cannot be assumed to exist"

[Ben Kenobi]

Jack:

I did not present Isaiah 7:14 as a successful prophecy. I presented it as a BOGUS prophecy. In fact, it fails several tests, not just one:

That's better. Now we got something to discuss.

Firstly, the claim that this was a prophecy of Jesus is false. It's quite evident from the context that it was a "prophecy" of the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz. This was supposed to be a sign to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8).

Agreed.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume that the author had any knowledge of the future birth of Jesus and intended the prophecy to relate to him!

Agreed. A real prophecy will say what will happen without knowing the precise details. A fake prophecy would. Your point here reinforces the legitimacy of the prophecy if fulfilled by Christ.

Secondly, there's no reason to assume that a genuine prediction was made, because Isaiah was apparently written after the birth of Maher-shalal-hash-baz.

When do you propose Isaiah was written? Remember, you cannot set a date after every prophecy listed occurred because prophecies cannot happen. That would be circular reasoning.

Thirdly, there's no independent confirmation that Jesus fits either. We don't know if he actually WAS born of a virgin, and he was called Jesus, not Immanuel (except by those who wished to link him with this "prophecy").

The key is not that the child would be born, named Immanuel, but in the meaning of Immanuel, or 'God with us.'

Now, what do you make Luke who does not refer to this particular prophecy, yet still testifies the Virgin birth, through a different account than Matthew. Two independent sources citing one fact seems to me reasonable truth in the virgin birth.

[Ben Kenobi]

A lot of. But we don't even have to go there. The problem is that science has come to the conclusion that god does not exist.

It has not been PROVEN, but nothing has, since the concept of proving does not even exist in the literal sense.

juhani_kavi:

These contradict each other. Science merely says that it cannot prove that God exists, not that God cannot exist.
Proofs exist in science, as that is a major portion of what science does, to establish reasonable evidence in favour of one position or the other.

However, as long as no evidence of god exists, there is no point believing that it does.

That's another point, seperate from your earlier points. There is evidence for the existence of God in nature, just not proof of God.

One example is the way in which our bodies work. Evolution says that somehow our bodies randomly formed, over a period of billions of years from a simple string of proteins to a human being. The odds of that happening, even over a period of time through pure chance are staggering.

[Asher]

Why dosent God just pop up and say "Hi"

Because he's too busy with his Heavenly Harem?

[Ben Kenobi]

wasn't Kantian concept of morality matching incredibly well with Christian one? and wasn't Descartes metaphysical theory fully compatibile with Christian religious basis?

Angelo Scotto:

That's a topic worthy of a thread in itself, the extent of the agreement between Kantian and Christian ethics. There are some differences.

What knowledge we have lost? during the middle-ages western civilization lost a lot of knowledge but mankind (middle-east and far-east civilizations) continued to accumulate it.

Library of Alexandria for starters.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
One example is the way in which our bodies work. Evolution says that somehow our bodies randomly formed, over a period of billions of years from a simple string of proteins to a human being. The odds of that happening, even over a period of time through pure chance are staggering.

I've asked you several times to back up this assertion with numbers. Nobody knows the odds, and saying they are "staggering" is disingenuous, since you're speaking of that which you don't know.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#csi

Were our bodies perfect in design and function, you might have a point, but they are far from being so. Much of how we are structured is evidence of chance, not design. I'll point you to our bodily pitfalls:

the coccyx, a bone at the base of your spine that has one role in life: to cause you enormous pain if you fall on it (our vestigial tail, evidence of evolution).
the hyoid bone, whose only purpose is to fracture when strangled
earlobes
nipples in men
the retina's blind spot (there's no need for the optic nerve and blood vessels to run across the FRONT of the retina...)
hernia sites
sinuses - a lot of people get sinusitis because they don't drain well. They'd drain brilliantly if our faces pointed down, as a quadrupeds would.
the appendix - a useless organ that can cause a fatal infection
the short urethra in females (prone to urinary infections)
the human neck - very easy to break, and any break will almost certainly kill you.
corneal anomalies (often inherited, and therefore allegedly God's plan...) such as astigmatism, myopia...
the blood supply to the scaphoid bone in the wrist is such that if you break the bone (which is reasonably common), the distal end of the bone loses its blood supply and dies, leaving a mild but permanent disability.

[DinoDoc]

If you're going to quote Talk Origins, quote my favorite faq: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

[Sarxis]

God actually did pop up and say hi to the Israelites at Mt. Sinai. The israelites told moses, "Don't ever let him do that again or we will DIE!"