Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40

Original poster

To want to make myself believe in god?

999 replies

HopHopHopSkip · 25/07/2013 22:55

I have always been very logical and so despite going to a Christian primary school, having a very religious mum(though not in a pushy way) and reading the bible when I was younger(the story version I was a bit of a book worm) I have never really got my head around how god could be possible.

But I really wish I had the extra "something" that some people seem to find by believing in god. I'm probably not making much sense, but I wish I could get myself to feel like there's somebody watching out, that there's something after death, that everything happens for what'd ultimately a good reason/what's meant to be so on.

AIBU to try going to church for a bit even though I don't believe in god? Or am I just being silly, is it something you can't 'make' yourself feel?

OP posts:

worldgonecrazy · 01/08/2013 10:39

Exodus 22:18 is the Biblical reference above. Other versions of the Bible use the term ?Sorceress? or ?woman who does magic?.

The original Hebrew manuscript uses the words ?m?khashepah? or ?khasaph?, the former meaning a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others, the latter meaning one who murmers.

The Greek?s translated m?khashepah as Pharmakeia: one who deals in potions and poisons. At the time, in Greek culture, the use of potions for magical purposes was regarded as evil superstitious nonsense by the Jews.

The murmerer of the Jewish culture filled a similar societal role as the Greek potion makers, therefore the Greek translation. So the Hebrew meant ?evil woman who mutters spells to do magic? and the Greek was ?evil woman who uses potions to do magic?.

When King James was busy translating the Bible for us, the common usage of the word ?witch? coincided with the evil muttering sorceress of the original Hebrew, therefore he used the word, plus he was a paranoid man who was convinced witches were trying to kill him. If King James was using modern English to translate the Bible he would perhaps have translated it similarly to modern versions which use terms like ?sorceress? or ?woman who does evil magic?. Yes ? it is only female magic users who are the targets of this bit, but there?s plenty of other stuff in the Bible if the menfolk are feeling left out.

It was this mistranslation/biblical text that was used by the Church and State as an excuse for some of the worst crimes against humanity that we have seen.

So whilst I'm not going to get into a "where was God when these people were suffering" argument, I am going to say that any god who thinks it worth the effort to send two bears to rescue one man from being teased by some youngsters, yet fails to lift a finger to protect humans who are being tortured and killed IN HIS NAME, is not a nice god. I refer you back to headinhands excellent post earlier today.

claig · 01/08/2013 10:41

"Claig. So you think the bible could have lies in it?"

I think the Old Testament is not a record of truth, but does contain some wisdom.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:42

Nope, it has been left so it looks like they got mauled because of god, that's how the written a wanted it to look. Didn't you yourself say how you bet they learnt their lesson. So you assumed they saw the obvious connection. But now you refute your own point?

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:42

So everything is true. God did set wild animals on people

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:49

Just heard on the news that some guy threw a load of people into the lion enclosure at Colchester Zoo. Guess there must be a reason for it. They must have deserved it somehow. What the guy did was probably right yeah?

madhairday · 01/08/2013 10:50

I don't think I said anything about them learning a lesson?

I don't think it's as easy to say 'it was deliberately left like this to look like God sent them.' It would be usual in this circumstance to say 'God sent them'. But it does not, which is a huge omission in OT terms.

However, we could get dragged down in the minutiae of this particular incident. I can understand why you are using it to argue a point about God's nature though. I'm trying to show it is simply not as clear cut as this, whatever seems 'obvious' from the text. There are plenty of biblical texts which seem to be 'obviously' saying something but in fact are simply not and deserve to be studied contextually in order to discover their deeper and true meanings.

madhairday · 01/08/2013 10:50

:( How awful

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:54

Can't remember who said this but the poster who posted links to people who got attacked by bears but survived. See what you're doing there? You're own morality alarm is going off and you're trying to find ways to rationalise gods behaviour. Sometimes we dehumanise the victims of the attacks, or we elevate the perpetrator. Anyway we can to justify the notion of the loving god we prayed to last night about Uncle Bert's back sending bears to attack people.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:57

So if a passage suggests god as immoral and nasty we obviously need to interpret it carefully and thoughtfully because it can't mean what it looks like. Whereas if a passage is uplifting and nice then we can just take it at face value as it already supports our idea of what god is

claig · 01/08/2013 10:57

"the loving god we prayed to last night about Uncle Bert's back sending bears to attack people."

But no believers believe that God sent the bears to attack people in those newspaper stories and you don't believe in God, so who is there who actually believes that God was the cause of the attacks be the bear? Does the bear have no responsibility in this at all?

headinhands · 01/08/2013 10:59

I love the fact that they're specifically she-bears. Good 'ol biblical females, getting it in the neck again.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:02

So you don't think god sent the biblical bears. Seems other posters say otherwise this morning. And what difference does it make what I believe. Why would my personal beliefs have anything to do with it? My questions are stand alone entities. Play the ball not the player.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:05

'Does the bear have no responsibility' not if god sent them, and besides they are bears! Do bears have free will too? Anyhoo god sent the bears which is how it reads. And which god must have wanted it to be read. And how other posters today have interpreted it.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:09

It's was atrcts that said 'everyone learned a lesson that day'.

claig · 01/08/2013 11:10

I was joking about the bear, to extend it to show that evil humans are responsible for their acts, not God.

But, not many of us believe that God sent bears to kill children because they were making funof someone. That is Old Testament style judgements etc, and does not square with a good, perfect, loving God.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:11

The lesson being what exactly?

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:13

So why would god be happy for it to be in there. Again your using your moral compass to decide it can't be as it looks, which is great, but in doing so you admit that the bible is not infallible and was written by men. And you have no reason to think differently for the good stuff in the NT

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:15

Use your own moral compass. Does it not go crazy when god would be happy for that story to be included.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:17

Thanks for the like World. Good job there isn't a dislike button!

claig · 01/08/2013 11:19

"So why would god be happy for it to be in there."

But God can't correct it, he can't get the red pen out and cross it out and write his own explanation on it, because it was written years ago by men. God does not intervene in every detail on earth.

headinhands · 01/08/2013 11:21

So it was okay for the bears to attack them but not kill them? How many lacerations was too much? How much blood loss was too much? Were they all allowed to lose say, 1 limb, several fingers? Whereas 2 limbs would be going too far for god, I mean come on, he's not a monster! 1 limb per victim is just about right.

claig · 01/08/2013 11:21

"And you have no reason to think differently for the good stuff in the NT"

I have because the New Testament makes sense because it is based on goodness and love and doesn't have stuff about bears killing children because they had mocked a religious man.

CuChullain · 01/08/2013 11:25

"But, not many of us believe that God sent bears to kill children because they were making funof someone. That is Old Testament style judgements etc, and does not square with a good, perfect, loving God."

We are kind of going back to the Woolworths pick and mix style of biblical interpretation. Believe the good bits and dismiss the bad bits, it all seems a bit convenient. Its a bit like the earlier discussions on miracles, tsunami kills thousands, God is not responsible, survivor found weeks later after said catastrophe, God is responsible.

Caster8 · 01/08/2013 11:33

headinhands is a wolf in sheeps clothing. Beware.

worldgonecrazy · 01/08/2013 11:39

caster8 I used to do a lot of interfaith work, and had some conversations about the nature of divinity with many different faiths. Whenever I said something that made sense to them, a certain group of Christians convinced themselves that I was sent by the Devil to test them and that I was speaking with a forked tongue. If I said something they disagreed with then they were happy to think it was because I was a misguided pagan.

Sometimes there are none so blind as will not see

Flip

1 2 ··· 35 36 37 38 39 40