Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

OK, how does God fit into this?

206 replies

KateandtheElves · 01/01/2005 20:15

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.

OP posts:
bloss · 09/01/2005 13:32

Message withdrawn

ocean · 09/01/2005 13:44

Oh Bloss, please, do some research!! The list of popes goes back to 32 CE!! The Roman Catholic church was a fully functioning organization with its authority centered at Rome, as early as the middle of the 1st century. Granted the set up was slightly different at that stage as it was later that the Pope spoke for the whole church, prior to that things were decided by councils of Bishops such as at Nicea.

Slug is correct, with the time of the Gospels being written, but as she said this does not have to be an issue unless you are being literalist! Of couse the Church was not wholly responsible for the Dark Ages, but it did contribute in a large fashion.

You say my arguments are full of half truths. Where? The Gospels I quoted from are deemed reliable, even the Church is acknowledging the validity of the Nag Hammedi library. In fact, many denominations now included Gospel of Thomas the same as the other Gospels in the Bible.

I have not said I do not believe the Bible's historic value, because I do believe a lot is an accurate history of the Jewish people. But there are many inconsistencies in the NT that at best can be seen as error, at worst, outright lies.

Did you know that it has been proven there was NO census when Jesus was born? And even if there had of been, Nazareth would not have been affected as it was in Galilee, which at that time was not under Roman rule so its citizens would not have been required to partake of a Roman census. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote a very complete history of the Jews in Palestine. He does mention a census which was conducted in Judea in 6 CE. But this was only a local census, not one that would enable "all the world to be taxed".

According to Luke 1:5, Jesus was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke 2:2 states that Jesus was born when Cyrenius/Quirinius was also governor of Syria. This has been shown to be an impossibility. The historical record shows that Herod was king from 37 until his death in 4/5 BCE. Quirinius was not governor of Syria at any time during this period. He came to power in 6 CE, a decade after Herod died.

The versions of Jesus birth vary as well. In Matthew 2:14, we are told that Joseph took Mary and Jesus to Egypt, yet in Luke 2:39, they went to Nazareth after Jesus' birth!!! Which is true? Also, in Mark they went home when Jesus was a few weeks old, yet in Matthew we are told he could be as old as 2, as this is the age Herod used in his command to kill all males in Bethlehem, based on what he had gleaned from the Magi/Wise men. Who incidentaly did not attend the birth!!

There are more inconsistencies, these are just a couple of glaring ones. So as you can see, far from being in astrology/Area 51/Elvis territory, I use the Bible itself to prove it's inaccuracy!!

ocean · 09/01/2005 13:50

Thanks Gwen Sophable, try this link, bit hard going in places, but worth persevering with!! Best to read the introductions etc before diving into the writings, as it will give you some knowledge of what to expect

www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

Casmie · 09/01/2005 13:54

Reading this thread with fascination. May I throw a link into the mix - it's a site I'm slowly reading through with interest by a historian but haven't come to any firm conclusions about yet, but is relevant to the discussion, I feel.

The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Interestingly, I've found that some of the historians who disagree with his conclusions still highly respect the historian and direct people to his site to read the other side of the story.

Pagan · 09/01/2005 14:22

Has probably been mentioned but felt the need to fling my tuppence worth in. I don't believe in God - I believe that humans created God because they needed to have faith in something as they have no faith in themselves. There always seems to be some sort of need to blame something or someone rather than just accepting that these things happen. I also believe that the story of the bible, God, Jesus etc. has been carefully manipulated by those in power over the centuries to control the masses. I believe that Jesus existed but that he was a normal decent bloke who spoke common sense. Probably the other power hungry folk at that time felt threatened by him hence his untimely end - much the same as our leaders today conspire to pull the wool over our eyes.

Look at the Dalai Lhama - I'm not religious at all but any time I've heard him speak it just seems to be common sense but what happened to him - he's been banished from his country and cannot return!!

I visited the Vatican once and rather than be overwhelmed by the place I felt sick - outside there were beggars and starving but inside the opulence and wealth was staggering. That just does not make sense to me!

slug · 09/01/2005 14:24

Ooops, Bloss, I was referring to St John when I made the comment about never meeting Jesus. Sorry, still dopey from the migraine last night.

As to the rest of your arguments it's a bit like a conversation I had with my daughter the other day. She is obsessed with a book about fairies and insisted that we had to have honey with all our meals because that's what the fairies do. No matter how much I tried to tell her it's only a story, and we are not fairies, she insists that this is what we must do because it is in the book.

Thats you and me. You see the bible as truth, I see it as a collection of Middle Eastern myths and history, wrapped up in prejudice and touted to the world as truth. Trying to convince me of your arguments by referring to a book riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions with doubtful provenance will never convince the unbeliever I'm afraid.

bloss · 09/01/2005 14:26

Message withdrawn

bloss · 09/01/2005 14:28

Message withdrawn

ocean · 09/01/2005 14:56

Oh dear!! No mention or explanation for the Bible inconsitencies then Bloss?!!

The Protestant Church IS the RC church, it split away from it, but it is still from the same roots.

Have you actually looked at the writings you are dismissing? Many of the actually back up scriptures that were included in the Bible, so to dismiss them means you are also dismissing their Biblical counterparts!! Do you also dismiss the Apocrypha, which apeared in the King James Bible?:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to the Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Prologue to Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

All these were widly accepted by the early Protestant movement as true, yet now are missing from most more modern translations.

miggy · 09/01/2005 15:09

DS got a thank you card yesterday, in post, from his form teacher (who is also the RE teacher and used to be a vicar). Saying also that he had been in Thailand just before the Tsunami but had left just in time "thank the lord"
As an agnostic I cant see how this works-if he believes in god then why would god save him not everyone else-because he believes in god?. What Im trying to say is if you bring god into it then how can you reconcile so many deaths?

Papillon · 09/01/2005 16:06

It seems like Bloss wants some books of reference. There is the website link.

The idea of God evolves with the people. So many God paths but who evades the tsunami... the animals... do they have Gods? Perhaps they listen to their Gods more.

So what is the tsunmani saying? Afterall it was a great water that made Noah take to his boat. Is this another example yet again of Revelation in a modern day form?

Gwenick · 09/01/2005 16:20

You're welcome Ocean - but I'm still not getting involved with a religion debate that you're involved in

ocean · 09/01/2005 19:24

LOL, because you know I ma right Gwen!! Seriously though, do you use the Apocrypha as part of your teachings?

bloss · 09/01/2005 21:13

Message withdrawn

ionesmum · 10/01/2005 10:38

I'm really no expert on the early church, when I was studying the chap that taught us was so clever he made Rowan Williams sound like Jade Goody, and I didn't understand a word!

From what I do know (which isn't much), my beief in the bodily ressurection of Jesus and the nature of sin is incompatible with Gnosticism. However, many believe that the Gnostic Gospels can give us an understanding of early Christian thought from a time when we know very little. One of the professors at Harvard, Karen L King, has written a commentary on the Gospel of Mary Magdalene as well as a book on Gnosticism looking at what Christians today can gain from this branch of early Christianity. I have just ordered these from Amazon along with the french translation of the Gospel of MM.

The big problem with the Gnostic Gospels (caused at least in part by the church's refusal to engage with them in any meaningful way) is that they get used by frauds and crackpots to produce bilge like the DA Vinci Code.

There can be little doubt that what we believe as Christians has been heavily influenced by Paul. I believe that God works through flawed people sometimes - Paul had a lover, for example, and ther is no doubt he was a mysoginist. But he also wrote some of the most beautiful and profound passages in the Bible.

The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke are apocryphal - they are deliberately written in such a way to reflect the Gospel writer's main theme. So in Matthew we have the Magi visiting the new-born King, and in Luke the ('unclean') shepherds visiting the Saviour of the poor and lowly. That doesn't mean we can't learn from them, but that they cannot be treated as historical documents. So if this is the case, what else did the writers add? Omit? Change?

The way that the church twisted the image of Mary Magdalene is important too, because this also raises the question of what else they may have changed or suppressed.

In the R.C. Bible, the Apocrypha is in the canon, and is incorporated into the O.T. So which canon is the infallible one?

Praise God that he/she never gets things wrong, unlike humankind!

ionesmum · 10/01/2005 10:46

BTW can I just add that when I say humankind gets things wrong, I put myself at the top of the list?

bloss · 10/01/2005 11:07

Message withdrawn

Papillon · 10/01/2005 11:33

ionesmum - your comments about Paul and his personality traits sounds like the book I read last week... The Education of Little Tree by Forrest Carter. Lovely book and quite emotive... turns out though wot I thought to be an autobiography of a Cherokee was actually a novel written by a white guy who was a leader of a KKK branch It was only after the publishing of the 25th anniversary edition (popular book) that it was finally acknowledged as "fiction".

KateandtheElves here is a link that may give you some answers to the tsunmani tragedy. HERE
People would probably label this guy a New Age Christian I suppose. Mate of mine here in Switzerland works in a book shop and she said his books are very popular. Anyway he speaks about the tsunami and his view of Gods response to this question at that link.

New Age Christian... You can get New Age everything these days... which I see as positive because people are exploring spirituality out of their religious boxes. Also bringing old religious/beliefs out of hiding e.g. Wiccan. (aye Ocean )

I believe that an open minded spiritual attitude sets the stage for the further spiritual development of humans rather than getting stuck in the mire of arguing about who, what, where, when.

Alot of people had to pass over suddenly with this tragedy. I have sent them comfort and peace. Papillon style prayer I guess.

Papillon · 10/01/2005 11:46

the bit about the tsunami is at the top of the page.. the page might load midway

slug · 10/01/2005 14:45

But bloss, I'm not denying that the Bible is to a large extent the history of the Jewish people. What I'm suggesting is that it needs to be read with the knowledge that the writers of history often have a point to make. Legends are created and metophors are made. If you can accept that the creation story is allegorical (especially given there are at least two distinct versions intertwined in Gernesis) then it is also realistic to assume that other parts of the bible have dubious provenence. It's a bit of a case for history always being written by the winners.

Now of course you can't apply the same sorts of arguments to the Quran. Still a load of fairy stories of course, but ones which have been proved unchanged from the time they were written.

ionesmum · 10/01/2005 19:11

Bloss, one of Matthew's main aims is to tell the world that Jesus is the promised royal Messiah, in direct lineage to David. Hence not only the opening chapter with the genealogy of Jesus and a potted history of the O.T., but the visit of the Magi bringing the gifts appropriate for someone of royal birth - also foreshadowing the cross and the revelation of Jesus' divinity. Luke is much more concerned with the universal mission of Jesus (his genealogy goes back to Adam), in particular those who are poor or in need. Hence the Magnificat (much used in liberation theology) and the visit of the shepherds, to show Jesus has come for the lowly and humble. Luke's inclusion Augustus is thought to be an attempt at a link with Paul's later mission to Rome.

The birth narratives are so riddled with inaccuracies and myth that my priest - who believes in the virgin birth, incidentally - does not think that they should be a part of Holy Scripture. I don't agree with him - I think they are a very good way of putting across the message of the two evangelists - but I don't think they are true.

I to believe in the virgin birth. It's not about proof, it's about faith.

ionesmum · 10/01/2005 21:23

papillon, I think the New Age movement is important too, because it makes the church think about why so many people find traditional church spirituality (or lack of it) uninspiring, but find that many New Age ideas speak to them, particularly in relation to the environment.

bloss · 11/01/2005 02:26

Message withdrawn

ionesmum · 11/01/2005 15:31

Bloss, I have no problem with the differences between Matthew and Luke, nor do I have any problem with the fact that they changed /added to their birth accounts to suit their purpose, but they cannot be taken as the literal truth.

'God became flesh, he didn't become book.'

I object very strongly to your suggestion that I believe what I do based on feelings rather than any rational process. I have not 'switched off', as you put it. I find that my faith stretches my mind and challenges my intellect; sometimes it soothes my soul (as at the moment) but not always. I have arrived at the beliefs that I have through years of study, prayer and personal experience, much of which has been bloody tough, including a year when I felt totally abandoned by God (needless to say when I looked at my lifestyle I realised it was I that had moved away) and a long time struggling with my sense of vocation, finally allowing that I had to do what God wanted me to, and then finding he took me somewhere else entirely and going through it all again. Feels right? Do me a favour.

I do have faith in the face of unreliable evidence, because that evidence comes from people. I have faced up to the fact that so much of what has been handed down as truth simply cannot be 100% true, and yet I still believe because the Holy Trinity transcends any mere historical record.

Why do you believe what you do? My guess is that you have been through exactly the same kinds of experiences as me and arrived in a different place. One of the great mysteries of faith is that two people can embark on the same journey and find themselves so far apart.

PlainFlum · 11/01/2005 15:38

Well according to the Old Testament, which is as far as I've got.

God sends the floods to punish the people for being so r*bbish.

So there you go.

Swipe left for the next trending thread