I've completely forgotten why God doesn't intervene

[Alameda]

or isn't there a reason?

I think, redmolly, that there isn't a "whole package" that anyone has to accept - faith is not such a propositional thing

I would agree when it comes to personal faith, i.e what is in your heart, but not when it comes to identifying with a particular religious tradition. I used to be rc. I stopped being rc when i had to finally admit to myself that i did not actually believe what i was reciting every week, and that matters when what you are reciting is a statement of your beliefs in front of the god you are supposed to believe in. To carry on stating at each mass that i believe in the virgin birth for example when i didn't would have been hypocritical. If you define yourself by a particular religious label then i think you are somewhat expected to accept its beliefs.

As an Anglican, I feel that as long as I believe in Jesus - his incarnation and resurrection, and in the two-fold injunction to "love God and love neighbour" - that's all that matters. And as other people have said in other threads, it's not so much about statements of belief but about following a Way, practising the life that Jesus was pointing towards with his own life.

It's more true that in Catholicism there is more of an injunction to affirm certain things categorically, but there is still room for interpretation, as many liberal Catholics will attest.

sciencelover I think we each decide what is "OK" and what's "just too far", on an internal sliding scale. Our old bishop up here was Richard Holloway, so I've always counted myself as an evangelical fundamentalist in comparison

DandyDan - if you are following a religious tradition that allows you to take what works for you and ditch what doesn't then i don't see any reason for conflict. Some churches are liberal, others are not. If your tradition requires specific beliefs and you don't honestly believe them then i would question why you would identify with that particular faith. You could be rc and not accept all the edicts of the catholic church, re contraception for example, but i would still think there is a bottom line where if your beliefs diverge substantially from your chosen church you should really examine why you are still a member.

Regarding prayer, if i believed in an interventionist god who could do miracles and answer prayers, i would expect him to cure small children when they are dying, especially when thousands are praying for them. The fact that he does not would make me question whether there is a god that intervenes. That would make more sense surely than saying it's not gods fault, we just have to trust he has a plan, it's because this is not heaven - no, but it is still his creation (if you believe that), and so is responsible for everything he created in it.

My issue still is with the fact that there are specific scriptural promises that prayers will be answered. And they are not.

If people choose to believe in an non interventionist god who set the universe in motion then stood back, then I can't begin to understand why you would, but it's a belief system that at least fits the facts. If people choose to believe in prayer as support, or as meditation, then that fits the facts as well. But people pray for specific things. And they don't happen. One thing that stuck in my head from the prayers for a child was somebody saying that she was being lifted up on hands of prayer so that God could see her. It was a beautiful image- but this is a a God for whom "not a sparrow falls......."

So god's in a win win situation all the way then? Bad things happen, well, shit happens, good things happen, thank you god.

It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I do not believe in god, if there was a god he wouldn't not allow innocent children to be ill, hurt, mistreated, or killed.
To see a child suffer from cancer myself the pain he went through and the courage potrayed by him to fight until his dying day yet god never answered my prayers, infact god hasn't answered any of my prayers but i still pray for the sick in the hope that there is something out there but one will ever know.

In the Book of Job your kind and loving god WILFULLY let Job suffer just to prove a point. Your all powerful god could stop you suffering but chooses not to, and in this instance deliberately causes the suffering. You can keep him. I don't want him.

My mum had breast cancer. Do i thank god for her still being here or blame him for her having to go through that in the first place? To do one and not the other is ridiculous.

What about the specific scriptural promises that prayers will be answered?

I think humanity evolved into a fresh new world with the ability to change it.We introduced carcinogens and pollution,evil people 'got away with it' and power hungry men craved dominance over others.
I believe God leaves us to 'work it out' and that we get another chance in another existence...or we may not.

Because he doesn't exist!

I think the 'god lit the fuse and ran' point of view is fine provided you don't then expect him to also answer prayers. I also think the world was far from fresh by the time we came along, by several billion years. Carcinogens also occur naturally, human beings didn't produce malaria or the the filarial eye worm headinhands mentioned way back up this thread. Other life forms were enduring life and death battles for survival, or don't they count?

What red molly said.

Not enough time to check whether the OP alameda is still about, but I can't help thinking that if you're asking, you're asking in the wrong place. If you're just gossiping and speculating, then it's a well worn topic and nobody is going to change their minds, are they? And it's not as if our opinions, whether they are home spun or borrowed and copied and interpreted from various tomes, matter anyway.

There is no god. The Hebrews worshipped the fiery masse at the top of volcanoes falsely believing that fiery masse had somehow been beamed down by Skotty. They, of course, did not know the lava came from below....they'd never heard of a hollow mountain before.

I recommend everyone investigate this idea (Google 'oh my volcano') because instead of feeling anger and disappointment in 'god', people will be able to accept their lot better.

Cultures throughout the world way back into prehistory have seen the divine in natural processes - hardly a new concept. The entire Norse pantheon for example. I've read your thread - you are not going to convince a single christian (i am not one btw) to abandon their faith based an your amazing volcano revelations - they will simply argue that god is still the force behind the volcano, whether or not an ancient people actually thought god was the volcano.

RedMolly

On the one hand you say it's hardly a new concept and on the other you say no way Jose will a single Christian believe it. A very negative and critical appraisal from someone who, I would guess, sees some possible truth in it.

Luckily I have come across people who very cheerfully say, 'Oh my.....now that does sound feasible.' I just love people with no chips on the shoulders.

new.exchristian.net/2011/12/volcano-made-my-faith-drain-away.html

p.s. see the comments at end of the article.

Cass, I'm not suggesting Christians live in a rose tinted bubble, I'm saying that this idea that god makes only good things happen and has nothing to do with the bad is a bit of a cop out when they are challenged on the tragedies of life and what the hell god was doing while all these prayers were desperately being sent in his direction.

Well Foghorn, judging by the comments on your thread not one single person there has been convinced. I don't need convincing since i don't believe in god. Incidentally, i have no chips on either shoulder - i was only telling you what others who define themselves as christian have already said to you, but you didn't seem to be listening. As you already have a thread devoted to this i may come back and discuss god and volcanoes there, but i'm not going to discuss it here.

Seeker, I think it's important to know which scriptural promises you mean. Is it, for example, Matthew 7: 7-8 ( ?Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened)? In that case it is not at all clear that we are meant to interpret this as 'everything that you could possibly ask for will always be given to you'; it seems more likely that the meaning is closer to James 1:5: ('If any of you is lacking in wisdom, ask God, who gives to all generously and ungrudgingly, and it will be given you.') But the Bible is a long and heterogeneous book which needs care in interpretation. Picking out a single proof-text and expecting that to nail an argument is a fool's game.

"Seeker, I think it's important to know which scriptural promises you mean. Picking out a single proof-text and expecting that to nail an argument is a fool's game."

I don't expect it to nail the argument. But I do expect such promises to be part of a discussion like this.

Incidentally, though, I not that Christians often expect single proof-text to nail their arguments. On things like gay marriage, and women bishops for example.