OK, how does God fit into this?

[KateandtheElves]

Personally I am agnostic (I think that's the right word. I don't believe in God but I can't say for sure that He doesn't exist.). But I have the utmost respect for people who do believe in God and use that belief to help them be better people (as my late husband did).

For those of you who do believe in God, and I know this a question that has been asked many times before, why would God let so many people (children even) be killed last week? I just can't understand how you could reconcile this enormous tragedy with a loving God.

I don't want to start an argument, but I'm genuinely interested in a believer's point of view.

I am not a follower of Christianity. And I do understand that this thread has been focussing on the Christian God to seek answers to the horrifying tragedy that has stunned the World. But I wish to give another perspective on the matter.

Whether it is a catastrophe whether it is life, death, joy or pain, the evolutionary process within each of us has no limitations. But our ignorance creates a cocoon around us that holds us from our wisdom and from our transformation. Sometimes violence is created by Mother Earth and the surrounding universe to help the caterpillar evolve through the cocoon -- the abyss of darkness into the transformed life as a butterfly.

The reality of the Great Spirit / God / Goddess etc and of all that lives is reflected in each one of us in our own personal domain. We grow at different rates and have different ideas about life. Yet we are not separate... from each other and the Earth. So the Earth creates a disruption, guided either by a God or by her own free Will (depending on your beliefs). I see the Earth another form of life and has a form of Will just like we do.

We look for answers with God / Spirituality in its many forms, we look to them for our joy and comfort. But often I think we forget to look for those answers in ourselves. To be connected with the signs that life presents to us constantly. The stories of the responses of the animals in Asia are a good example. They felt the earthquake and felt dangers presence. So they took action and sought higher ground away from the tsunami. How many humans did this? What messages are the masses failing to recognise in the spiritual teachings we have aplenty here on Earth. That we allow ourselves, to die in masses while the animals who are frequently seen as lesser beings in the eyes of many, take action to protect themselves?

---

A deer in headlights is in a sense, looking at the tsunami, failing to get out of harm's way. There is much coming, and you must learn to get out of the way and let it go on by. Always seek the higher ground and allow your joy to take you there. Joy arises out of your self-esteem and the power of your self-worth. Joy allows you to choose life. The lesson in any disaster is to get out of the way, move to higher consciousness and learn to live differently. This is what Mother Earth is asking of you now.

Lynn Andrews

---

Message withdrawn

But Bloss, Jesus never claimed to be god's son. It was an assumption made by those around him. And why do you quote James? Who was he? Did he actually hear these words from the lips of Jesus, or was he interpreting? There is something very very dangerous in taking literal truth from a collection of stories, none of which was written by an eyewitness, and the last of which (Luke) was completed 150 years after the death of the main character.

I disagree that people 2000 years ago were the same as us. They led short, brutal lives in tribal groups under the control of a distant power. In those circumstances it was necessary that the population reproduced as much as possible, hence restrictions on homosexuality and contraception. Tribal constraints meant that the fatherhood of children was of high importance, hence the emphasis on marriage. If you can accept that Kosher eating rules were a response to unavaliability of refridgeration and hygienic preparation facilities, then surely you can accept that much of the morality discussed in the bible is a reaction to social conditions of the time. If you can change your ideas on one set of rules, why can't you change your ideas on another? As a Christian do you still eat shellfish and have sex during menstruation? I can't find the place in the New Testament where these rules are revoked, but they are in Leviticus.

Incidentally hopefulmoveover, I don't think joash is alone in not fearing death. As an athiest the thought dosen't bother me either. In my experience it is those with a belief in hell or purgatory who seem to fear the idea.

no am not upset with god in the least - no crisis of faith their - and the fact remains the bible was written by man collated and edited by man. both old and new testament.

i agree that the narrative in the bible gives a historical perspective as it was indeed a book of its time. and it was a very different time - that society is different - and in those countries still is different from ours.

you will win the competition on biblical quotes bloss - all day long i do not know the bible inside out buit i have been in contact with it all my life and have formed a different opinion to yours - an opinion is just that
you see things differently but it doesnt automatically make you right - no on will know til we pop our clogs and meet our maker.

so i respect that you have a different opinion from mine i am trying to put accross my POV and my opinion - as indeed mumsnet is a collation of many different opinions.

the bible can be interpreted in many different ways as the world has shown - this is my interpretation and its not for you to catagorically tell me that i am wrong

Personally I believe that the Bible is the word of God but that , because it has come to us through human mechanisms, it has got flawed. It means that you have to try and discern which parts really reflect the God that you know. If I had to choose between taking it literally and not believing I would really struggle. Bloss, my faith is not easy, not least because I am so grateful for all that God has done for me that I have given my life to him, yet fall down time and time again in how I serve him/her. I do agree with Custardo that you seem to be saying that your Christianity is superior to ours because we see things differently. I don't think we are going to agree on this, so can we just accept that we both have invited Jesus into our hearts, and therefore are sisters in Christ. whatever our differences?

Custardo, I am sorry to hear about your faith problems at the moment, I have been there and it is a horrible experience. Hang on in there, it will get better. The Spirit works in us even when we are not aware of it, even if we feel that we are just going through the motions. FWIW you sound more p*ssed off with the church than you do God, which I can sympathise with. But churches are full of human beings, so of course they will screw things up. God doesn't.

Sorry, custardo - our posts overlapped!

Well, just to muddy the waters, there is proof now that Jesus did not actually teach what Christianity thinks he did. As we have it, Christianity is a literalist Religion. They believe that the Bible is literally Gods' word. But it is not, as much of the text the original Christians used and lived by are not even in it.

Also, if you compare the Hebrew Bible to the Old Testament you will see they read very differently. Jews did not believe in Hell, and neither did Jesus. When he spoke of Hell, he did not mean some fiery pit! He actually taught an older religion called the "Mysteries". When you understand this and have in your possesion the extra Gospels and writings that were found in recent years, you will start to see a much different picture.

The real picture emerging is one where women were equal to men in Jesus's circle. Where churches and all that goes with them was seen as the wrong path, as God is within so no need for an intermediate. And that has come so true. Churches get rich and powerful which is contrary to what Jesus taught.

In the New Testament it is possible to glean some bits of Jesus true message. Example, Lazurus death is taken by Christians to be talking of literally a man rising from the dead. But it was not meant that way, it was a spirtual rising from the "death" of ignorance. The clue to that being the true meaning remains in the NT, where in JOHN 11:16 we have Thomas saying:

"Let us also go, that we may die with him."

Here they do not mean literally die with Lazerus, they mean spiritually so they can be reborn into the Truth.

So until you have all available scripture available, I would treat the Bible with caution as it is a half-version of the Truth. The version MEN of power wanted to put out to control the masses.

Gomez
Haven't time to read all, so this may have been answered, but the reason earthquakes, volcanoes etc have to exist is because the volatile structure of the planet was responsible for spewing out all the elements that made you and me in the first place. Volcanoes, earthquakes etc are really our parents, in a sense. It's no good turning round now and saying 'thanks but no thanks, don't need you any more.' Nature doesn't work like that. Nothing that is wonderful on our planet would exist if it wasn't for the volatile nature of the planets construction.

The answer is for people to be removed from those areas, we know where the dangerous places are and it is within our power to 'rehouse the world', as it were. But will this be done? Unlikely. Mankind is apathetic and would rather risk millions more lives than get it's act together and start sharing.

ocean, I find your views very interesting, I am about to make a study of the Coptic gospels myself. Custrado made the point earlier about Mary Magdalene. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that she was the woman caught in adultery. But because Mary is a powerful figure, with Jesus appearing first to her, it suited the church to destroy her image in order to keep going with its subjugation of women. At the time only religious art was allowed to be painted, so by depicting Mary naked they got themselves a nice line in soft porn, too. Given that men of the church behaved in this way, it is hard not to conclude that somewhere down the line, the men who wrote, translated and interpreted the Bible, and those responsible for deciding which Scriptures were included, did not do the same.

ionesmum, I am currently reading the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. It is fascinating. The Gospel of Thomas is next on the list for me. There is a lot of information out now that describes how the Church manipulated Mary M's image as well as that of the Virgin Mary. The latter was brought into focus by the Catholic Church to appeal to the Pagan masses who wanted/needed a Goddess figure. The more I learn, the more complex it all gets and yet at the same time so many things make so much more sense to me!

Is this not a good time to discuss the Da Vinci Code

Tinker - naughty. Stop it.

jabberwocky, I am going to read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene too. Don't know what I'll make of it mind!

Get the one based on the French translation - cant's think of the name just now - it seems to do the best job of discussion, although I am thinking of starting a group on it. It is a short gospel but deep.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

Bloss, I am basing my views on years of study and the Nag Hammedi library. When I say much of the texts early Christians used were not included in the NT, I mean exactly that!! The Church itself is one of the best sources of fact that many, many hundreds of scriptures and writings were purged from existence. The library in Alexandria was burnt to the groud by the Church in an effort to stamp out what they termed heresy. In fact, it was just truth, but it did not suit the version of literal Christianity they were trying to push forward.

They systematically destroyed all that did not agree with them. And if you look at early Chruch records, their historians admit it.

When the Nag Hammedi library was dicovered, a whole new picture began to emerge about what was really taught back then. A very different picture to the one we have today. An example or 2 from the library:

You follow a literalist interpretation of the Bible, which is fine, that is what was actually predicted. Many will seek, but few will find, so how can one of the largest religious movements on Earth be termed "few"?!!

Jesus was not sent by the Bible god, he came from above that creature.

Ooops, forgot the examples!! Note to self, do not drink wine and try and post LOL

From the Gospel of Philip:

"One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the Father gave to the Son; it is the name above all things: the name of the Father. For the Son would not become Father unless he wore the name of the Father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it."

Now, if the name is unknowable, why do we call God Yaweh/Jehovah? It is clearly stated in the OT that the Bible god is called that, the Tetragramaton(sp?) YHWH.

"There were three who always walked with the Lord: Mary, his mother, and her sister, and Magdalene, the one who was called his companion. His sister and his mother and his companion were each a Mary."

Mary Magdalene was, according to Philip, Jesus' companion.

What I also forgot to add was, much of the OT has been borrowed from the Eyptian religion/culture. Not suprising as the early Hebrew spent much time in Egypt, plus Moses was educated as an Egyptian Prince!! There are too many similarites for it to be coincidence, and the Egyptian religion pre-dates the Hebrew. Even the 10 Commandments appear in Eyyptian writings, which Moses would have been taught.

Message withdrawn

Bloss, it is no more theory than the Bible!! To many that is "wild extrapolation". Are you always so rude to people who hold a different opinion? Or one which disagrees with your pet theory/belief?

I think you need to do a little more research into the history of the Church before you pass further comment. You will find even in the 4th century if was becoming powerful, and the politics that shaped it were well under way. In fact, it was in 325ce that the Trinity theory was compounded at the Council of Nicea. There were 300 Bishops at the meeting, so hardly a fledgling movement with no institutionalisation!!

In 381 the Emperor Theodosius ordered the destruction of all "pagan" temples/writings, and the Bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus, complied with this request.

Why do you think that era is called The Dark Ages? Its because the Church destroyed all records that did not agree with it so we are left with scant knowledge of that time.

Yes, I am talking of a war between 2 branches of Christianity, one which was branded heresy, but is showing to be the true version Jesus taught. Jesus never taught in a literal manner, so it stands to reason he would not have followed a religion that expected just that approach. He spoke in veiled terms, in parables etc. So he would have taught his true followers to approach their faith likewise. Even in the Bible you can glean bits of this schism between the 2 factions.

You have Paul, and his brand of Christianity, which is what would become the basis for the Church, and you have the Church of Jerusalem, who were people like Jesus' brother James and the disciples. Now, I am sure they had a better understanding than Paul, who never met Christ.

Many of the things we now attribute to Jesus via Christianity were actually things PAUL wrote. So really todays Church could be said to Paulism, not Christianity.

Please, do yourself a favour and do some simple research on GOOGLE.

jabberwocky - that is the version that I have ordered. When you say you are starting a group study of it, what do you have in mind?

Message withdrawn

Oh dear bloss. We've had this argument before haven't we. St John, of the gospel of John was a Greek who wrote his gospel around 80AD. It is generall acknowleged that he never actually met Jesus, so any direct quote coming from him is at best open to dispute. Your assertation that the gispels are all written pre AD100 "That is not generally accepted. There is good evidence to believe that the last of the gospels was completed before 100AD" is actually only believed by a few sects of Christianity, those with a vested interest in the literal interpretation of the gospels as they stand.

Scholarly thinking (and I's sure ocean will back me up here) puts Mark as being written about 50AD, John as about 80AD, Matthew soon after and Luke as coming into it's final form about 150AD. Hardly a lot of eyewitnesses. However, this in no way undermines the basic Christian message UNLESS you insist on a literal interpretation.

I'm sure you feel the need to refute my and ocean's comments because they challenge the basis of your belief. But from an academic standpoint, the bible is best understood as a historical record of an evolution of tradition rather than an absolute standpoint of unchanging belief. Treat it as 'gospel' and eventually the inconsistencies will trip you up. Incidentally, do you still think slavery is acceptable? It's referred to explicitly in the Letters of St Paul.

I'm not saying that Christianity has no valid message for society (though as an athiest, I can see the evil wrought in it's name and would prefer a world without it) I'm not saying that Christianity dosen't bring emotional support to you and many others. What does bother me is the absolutist position that Christianity is the ONLY answer to the world's troubles, and that ONLY the interpretation that you put on it is the right one. The problem is that it is YOU who uses extrapolation and pronounces it as fact. How can someone who never met Jesus, not met anyone who knew him personally, and with a vested interest in promoting a set of beliefs that elevate him to a divine position, possibly be a trusted source?

I swore I wouldn't get into this debate but I just want to comment on Bloss's comments about bits being 'left out. I'm a Christian BTW (now C of E, but brought up methodist and been 'round the houses). However there is strong evidence, and it's fact that (as already stated the gospels were written after Jesus died - but hey some of the most 'official' books on people that have long since died were written after their deaths,,,,,) there eventually became a 'ageed' consensus on which books where to remain in the bible, and which were not to.

I 'do' believe that bible is God's word. However, I also respect others beliefs, and I know that Ocean does to - she's has (I know for a fact) read very widely, in several different religions) about the things she's talking about and while I'll never agree with her - she is perfectly entitled to her opinion without

There was a very interesting programme on BBC over Christmas "Who wrote the bible" that looked into this. And many bishops, priests and other people 'high up' in the church agreed with a lot of what was said.

Her claims that she makes can very easily be found all over the web and also in books offline. While I don't agree with them she's certainly not making them up.

Right now Ocean - that's ALL I'm saying on the matter or this debate will still be going this time next year LOL

ocean, v interested in finding out more about gospel of philip etc. good websites?