I've completely forgotten why God doesn't intervene

[Alameda]

or isn't there a reason?

jackel - you do seem to have a habit of quoting something from someone else's post, adding a quick comment, then sticking a bible verse in as a supposed answer. It's not exactly a "conversational" style of posting, which is much more what we tend to do here on Mumsnet. I know you're new here and maybe this is the usual way people post on the other forums you are on, but it's not a very effective way of getting a dialogue going.

If you look through the other threads on here you'll see that we tend to talk to each other much more as if we were chatting in the same room, though obviously with a turn-based style, and lots of problems of separate overlapping "conversations". But we find it works and makes things less adversarial, in general.

Jackel, do you know anything about these verses? Not meaning to be rude there, but this is a genuine question -

Yes I do.. And I am clearly challenging them on these verses. And most of the bible has no specific named authors.. And yes I am aware of the intended meaning of the quotes. However, that doesn't change the context of quotes I have given. .. And yes the cult of yahweh nearly went extinct if it wasn't for the second Isaiah.. Monotheism didn't solidify really take root until then.

jackel - if by "making it up" you mean I am adapting aspects of faith while keeping the central core of it intact, then yes I am "making it up". Just as has happened throughout the history of Christianity. And I take it all seriously, and believe that God was interacting with the people who wrote the Bible. I just don't believe that he dictated it word by word, or that their ability to understand what God was doing was fundamentally any more complete and accurate than my own is. Therefore I read their accounts of what happened, and their explanations, and their expectations, in the light of their humanity, and adapt as I think necessary to fit with my own understanding of the world.

So, Jackal, tell us why you think 1 Thessalonians says what it does about vengeance on those who do not know God, and how that fits in with other strands of early Christian thought. As AMIS says, we like to chat here, and I like to chat about the Bible. No point in being adversarial, if there's a decent question to thrash out, let's thrash it out together. (What is your basic hermeneutic? AMIS has given a very clear explanation of hers.)

Jackel, you say that "I am aware of the intended meaning of the quotes", but you are not giving very much evidence of what that understanding is. You are flinging quotes about as if they could simply speak for themselves.

The last few posts by me, HolofernesesHead and AMumInScotland have all tried to demonstrate how our understanding of the Bible is influenced by historical and textual scholarship, the tradition of Christian exegesis and theological study, as well as our own understanding of the world. We've all tried to say that the Bible is a complicated, heterogenous book which doesn't simply 'speak for itself', and shouldn't be taken literally.

I'm not seeing that much evidence in your posts of similar processes of questioning, thought and study.

.. but I would like to. Then we could have a proper discussion.

HolofernesesHead Mon 16-Jul-12 13:17:30

It's rather easy... This is what happens when your dealing with competing religions and beliefs in the region. It's also used a control tool.. And it's still used in Christian fundamentalism here today.
[quote]
jackel - if by "making it up" you mean I am adapting aspects of faith while keeping the central core of it intact, then yes I am "making it up". Just as has happened throughout the history of Christianity.[quote]

No, you're not retaining the central core of it, you're making up your own.. And yes, Christianity constantly changed itself to adapting to modern times. This to which includes the fount of knowledge in Orthodoxy that is pretty much Pantheism when you break it down..

All you are telling me right now is that your religious is what you want it to be while ignoring what it was and is. Like I said earlier, Christians love the ever moving goal post...

Oh okay, so...what were the competing religions and beliefs in Thessalonica, as you understand them?

Christianity is a religion of relationship betwen humanity and God. Why would it not change over time?

For me, the central core of Christianity is summed up in the Nicene Creed, which I believe. What do you think it is, if something different from that?

Ah, I've just realised you were quoting 2 Thessalonians in both of your cited texts, which makes things more interesting as the dating and authorship of that text is so contested - so, go on, what was at stake there, do you think?

Quote :The last few posts by me, HolofernesesHead and AMumInScotland have all tried to demonstrate how our understanding of the Bible is influenced by historical and textual scholarship, the tradition of Christian exegesis and theological study, as well as our own understanding of the world. We've all tried to say that the Bible is a complicated, heterogenous book which doesn't simply 'speak for itself', and shouldn't be taken literally. /quote

Wrong.. verses I have stated have a clear self-stated context. You're looking for excuses to magically change the meaning to what-ever you want it to. Hence you choose to ignore what is actually stated.. Basically you are cherry picking what you want to take literally and what you don't want to. And good luck having that battle with those whom take the bible literally... You should try comparative theology, especially Christianity in the light Egyptology.

[quote]
. I just don't believe that he dictated it word by word, or that their ability to understand what God was doing was fundamentally any more complete and accurate than my own is.[/quote]

Basically a "I don't know" argument... Look, just admit that you are riding what you want to believe.. You basically know absolutely nothing, and I don't think you even have a grasp of how to define your GOD.. And thus far, your interpretation bares no resemblance to what Christianity was 2,000 years ago. You basically have a new religion.. Which is kind of funny in an evolutionary context. This is like watching religious speciation.. :/

So, Jackal, what is the context of 2 Thessalonians? Let's get the basics sorted out, then we can start to make connections between then and now and draw some conclusions.

So, do you think that people should not adjust aspects of their religion in the light of current understanding of issues like science or psychology? Or do you just think that people shouldn't believe in God at all?

FWIW I believe this stuff -

We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father.
With the Father and the Son, he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

• which is certainly what Christianity believed in 325 AD when it was written

It's interesting, isn't it, that the only time the 'scriptures' (plural) are referred to in the Nicene Creed are with reference to the resurrection? I'd not noticed that before. Hmmm.....[wanders off pondering, should really get on and do some work....]

Yes, I certainly think it's interesting that I've never had to make any claim to "believe in" the scriptures in many years of churchgoing, despite the fact that so many people get antsy about how I can't possibly be a "real" Christian if I don't believe in them absolutely.

I only have to beleive in God (father, son and spirit) and the church. Even in terms of an afterlife I only have to "look for" it rather than specifically believe in it.

Oh okay, so...what were the competing religions and beliefs in Thessalonica, as you understand them?

It's not really relevant of which competing religions and beliefs surrounded it.. Paganism to any other religion, or anyone for that matter that didn't worship this god. This being the time period around 50 AD. And it had a lot to do with the idea of establishing the kingdom of GOD.. It's the old tactic as well about persecution where Christians think anything against their religion were persecuting them. We see Christians make these same arguments all the time. However, for argument sake, their supposed persecution was by the Jews whom were supposedly not happy Paul or the Gospels.. And this is pretty much around the time when the Gospels had great success even though object of the GOSPELS (Jesus) is more than likely a fictional Character..

And the context of that quote is not limited to the supposed Jews that persecuted them.. It's context is clear..

Actually, going back to the OP and the whole question of physical healing, when I was ill a while ago I took huge comfort from the fact that we say in the creed not 'we believe in the healing of the body' but 'we look for the resurrection of the dead' - our ultimate hope as Christians (as I understand it) is not in miracles of healing but in somehting more permenant than that. Even if someone is healed physically of an illness, they still die eventually. Our hope is in the end of death itself, the 'life of the world to come.'

AMIS have you quoted the Orthodox (rather than Western) version? I think the Western version has the Holy Spirit proceeding from both the Father and the Son

I love it that it ends 'We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come'. That sums up the message of hope that's at the centre of Christianity.

Jackal, just to pick up on a few of your points:

2 Thess is most unlikely to have been written in 50CE.

Even if had been, the Gospels could not have had any 'success' as they hadn't been written then.

The relationships between 'Jews' and 'Christians' were inredibly complex in the 1st and 2nd cs. There certainly weren't two distinct groups of people, Jews on the one hand and Christians on the other. That's wildly historically wrong.

Do you know anything about the persecution of Christians in the 1st and 2nd cs?

Or about the historical Jesus?

niminy - this is the version I use (Scottish Episcopal church). Not sure why we don't have the filioque in there!

It's not like I think about the filioque very much at all... dunno why I picked it up really...

Anyway, reading it over was like a still moment of prayer -- thank you for posting it!

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has been suggested before but as I understand it, if you are talking about people who are ill or suffering, God doesn't cure, he heals. So asking for a cure would be asking for a miracle - it goes against the natural order of things that man lives and then dies. Asking for healing is about asking for strength to cope with whatever we are suffering from. None of us can answer whether God has answered anybody else's prayers on that one, whether they have more strength to deal with the bad stuff than they would have had. I assume that if you don't take comfort from God then you don't really have faith because to have a faith would mean that you know that the suffering will end one day and that you will have a new life in heaven.

That is just my thinking on how it might be in some ways be reconciled. I have no great faith or insight though.

"We believe in one God, the Father, the almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen."

This alone is a core belief that is a self-refutation. But derives from the concept taken from the creation story that was rooted from polytheism.. Yes it became a part of your religion.

[quote]
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father. [quote]

Who's we? This sounds like the trinity to which makes no coherent sense. And you are kind of killing your monotheism here (god from god) to which is core value of Christianity. And yes, it's written in 325 AD which doesn't bode well... But since you believe it, can you back it up? Hence, provide contemporary source other than and inside invested source to validity any of the such? And to say Jesus was the only son of GOD would be conflicting with other scripture such as the that below.. Here is where people don't have father and are born of GOD to which contradicts the "one and only who came from the "father":

John 1:1 In the beginning the Word already existed.
The Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
2 He existed in the beginning with God.
3 God created everything through him,
and nothing was created except through him.
4 The Word gave life to everything that was created,[a]
and his life brought light to everyone.
5 The light shines in the darkness,
and the darkness can never extinguish it.[b]

14 So the Word became human[d] and made his home among us.

And:

10He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God? 13children born not of natural descent,c nor of human decision or a husband?s will, but born of God.

14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,dwho came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

But if you're Orthodox, you don't rely scripture because you need to cherry pick from it form your core values..

Orthodox Christianity is pretty much Pantheism and Polytheism wrapped in some incoherent concept of GOD that reflect the actual bible of the root history of the religion.. Just read the fount of knowledge:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

www.archive.org/stream/AnExactExpositionOfTheOrthodoxFaith/An_Exact_Exposition_Of_The_Orthodox_Faith_djvu.txt

Abstract 1:

Quote:

"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:

Quote:

"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

    Boundless
    Uncontained
    Unlimited
    Omnipresent
    The containing and sustaining of all things
    Omniscient
    Immaterial

Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute, or thing (such as ourselves). Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. So here is what it boils down to under information theory:

* I = reference to all the information that gives I an Identity. It's the entire essences of "I am".

So let's see where this entire GOD concept completely falls apart. Especially when concerning "Omniscience".

1. A boundless GOD? Can a boundless GOD be boundless if you are to claim all of us to be separate individuals? What boundaries lie between GOD being me, and not being me?

2. If he is uncontained then what separates him from me?

3. If he's without limits, what limits define GOD apart from who I am?..

4. If he is omnipresent, where do I exist?

5. If he contains and sustains all things, would he not be existence itself? Thus am I, and everyone else here not the conscious representations of god, or GOD himself?

6. If he is Omniscient and knows infinitely everything to which is knowable, would he not know me in every infinitely knowable way to where he himself would literally be I, me, or who I am in every infinitely knowable way?

7. If he is immaterial, would he not be made of nothing? Thus how does nothing exist as a person, place, or thing? How does nothing as a substance be the property value of something? How does nothing contain and sustain informational value?

And at best this GOD would be equivalent to pantheism to which is as follows:

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.

"we" is the congregation who are reciting the Creed.

monotheism vs the Trinity - I think you'd have to read a whole book on that one

Can I back it up - no, it's a statement of faith, not a scientific theory

To become a child of God is not the same as being God incarnate, which is what the rest of the Creed and various scriptures say Jesus was. I think even the bits you're quoting make it pretty clear that what they are claiming about Jesus is quite different from what they say is possible for humanity.