Why didn't God send his son nowadays?

[Immanuel Can]

A merely rhetorical device. Yes, thank you.

One more question: am I to understand from your last example that the incidental substitution of "his" for "that" produces some sort of titanic shift in meaning that makes the two statements fundamentally inequivalent, such that while the former is a direct and pure quotation, the latter is some sort of insidious straw man? I am missing the distinction, it would seem.

Well, philosophy is precise about words, so long as the words make a difference. And I'm content to entertain the possibility that you have something in mind there. Can you expand?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

It's simply because the time that it was coined was a time when people were not as enlightened and could be led astray with the fantastic imagination of fearful crazy people. You do realize that the bible is totally a work of fiction, right?

[David Handeye]

Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

It's simply because the time that it was coined was a time when people were not as enlightened and could be led astray with the fantastic imagination of fearful crazy people. You do realize that the bible is totally a work of fiction, right?

Sorry, did I write the word "bible" anywhere? Do you see the word "bible" written anywhere in my original post?

[Ginkgo]

A merely rhetorical device. Yes, thank you.

Yes, I thought we had already established that a while ago. Were we not going to swap truisms? Perhaps not. I got the impression that your truism was truer than my truism.

One more question: am I to understand from your last example that the incidental substitution of "his" for "that" produces some sort of titanic shift in meaning that makes the two statements fundamentally inequivalent, such that while the former is a direct and pure quotation, the latter is some sort of insidious straw man? I am missing the distinction, it would seem.

Well, philosophy is precise about words, so long as the words make a difference. And I'm content to entertain the possibility that you have something in mind there. Can you expand?

Yes, I would imagine that preciseness is both philosophy and grammar are important. First of all I think we need to be clear on exactly what a straw man argument entails. A misquote is not a straw man argument as such. An inaccurate quote cannot be an argument. It is the commentary on the inaccurate quote that can provide for a false representation.

If you are happy with my explanation then we can move on to your other concern(s).

[Immanuel Can]

But the explanation does not make me "happy," as you put it, because your answer merely obscures the point.

You stated that Jesus Christ was "a man for that/his historical time." Either way, what you said was either empty and circular (if you cannot suggest even one man who isn't "for that/his time") or manifestly untrue.

Which was it?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why did God decide to send his own son just 2000 years ago? I don't think that world, that time, that humanity, was more corrupt than ours. Being God omniscient, He should have known the time when his sons and daughters were more in need of help. Nowadays, most of Jesus' teaching have been forgotten. Maybe the best time to send his son would have been during WWII as to stop the holocaust of his people, I think that was the right time, to save his people and to introduce his glory in the world by his son. Contemporary humanity could have been much better than it actually is. Being omniscient God should have known, I think. So why in I century? Is there a particular, religious reason that I ignore?

It's simply because the time that it was coined was a time when people were not as enlightened and could be led astray with the fantastic imagination of fearful crazy people. You do realize that the bible is totally a work of fiction, right?

Sorry, did I write the word "bible" anywhere? Do you see the word "bible" written anywhere in my original post?

I'm sorry, but you missed my point. Which was, who said he ever came at all, that there is one, if so, that it shall ever come, or that it needs to come, as if you or I would necessarily know of a creators intent in its creation, and that what its creation is doing is not what was intended.

As with most, you seem to create a god of your choosing.