I've completely forgotten why God doesn't intervene

[Alameda]

or isn't there a reason?

Orthodox Christianity is pretty much Pantheism and Polytheism wrapped in some incoherent concept of GOD that doesn't reflect the actual bible of the root history of the religion.. Just read the fount of knowledge

---

It's basically Gospel based to which is really based on corrupt greek texts..

Jackal, I don't understand your question about 'backing up' the creed. Do you mean 'can you find evidence elsewhere that people believed these things in 325ce' or 'can you find evidence that these things are actually true'? And sorry to sound like a stuck record, but do you know much about the 'insiders' who composed this creed, and what was at stake at Nicea? If you do, you will know how important the word 'begotten' - i.e. God doesn't stop being God by eternally 'begetting' the son - as one person put it, it is in the very nature of God to be bettering, so the eternal begetting of the son is utterly intrinsic to the nature of God. I guess it's a bit like saying that we don't stop being humans when we become parents, but rather that in many cases, it's in human nature to have children. (Not that I'm saying that people who don't gave children are less human, but more that parenthood belongs to a wider category of human experiences.) I'll stop rambling now! :)

The idea of a divine being who could intervene but chooses not to? I find the idea really troubling. As an ex-evangelical I'm driven bonkers by 'praise the lord' when something good happens. Why don't we 'curse the lord' when something bad happens?

If a human parent chose not to do what was within their power to make things better when their child was really suffering, we'd regard it as sadistic and he or she wouldn't be allowed to take care of that child any more. I just can't believe in a deity that behaves that way.

Having said that, I do pray and I believe that prayer is powerful: over time prayer changes my attitude to whatever the challenge is. In my view, whether or not the cause of the suffering is removed has nothing to do with 'God'.

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

Good luck with that one.. lol.. But hey, give it a shot and provide me a peer reviewed journal that proves the trinity..

[quote]
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.[quote]

Prove it. And this had nothing to do with what I stated.. And btw.. the whole GOD incarnate thing is not original to Christianity. Just curious if you know where they largely ripped that from..

Rookery asked "Why don't we 'curse the lord' when something bad happens?" Who says we don't? I've certainly been furious with God any number of times.

What human parents can't do is redeem the suffering of their children by giving them a new life. God does.

Jackal, why is the Bible the 'root'? If you know anything about the early development of Christianity, you'll know that the 'Bible' as in OT & NT didn't emerge for quite some time, and that faith in Jesus pre-dated the Bible considerably.

Out of interest, which Greek texts do you think are corrupt? You're talking to a Greek-reader here, so I'd be interested to know.

Rookery - i'm wondering how is prayer as you experience it different from meditation on a problem in the way i would practice it (i.e. without god)? I mean in terms of benefit and outcome.

jackel - maybe I misunderstood your point - you said "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"

So, you think the verses which refer to people being made "children of God" negates the idea that Jesus was the "only Son of God"?

Jackal, i actually agree with what you are saying, but i don't think it is fair to ask people to produce proof when it comes to their faith, which is why it is faith! I think it is entirely fair game if someone presents an article of faith as fact or the bible as reliable history, or justify their beliefs by presenting 'evidence' that is completely contradictary to the laws of physics. It's not fair though when they are trying to explain something they intrinsically believe in their heart, but can't possibly prove, or can only affirm through personal experience. I think it helps the debate if people can try to engage on a more metaphysical level.

Jackal, why is the Bible the 'root'? If you know anything about the early development of Christianity, you'll know that the 'Bible' as in OT & NT didn't emerge for quite some time, and that faith in Jesus pre-dated the Bible considerably.

I am well aware of the fact the bible has been edited. And sorry, most of that stuff even predated Jesus. The Christian religion is pretty much a mutt the emerged from it's polytheistic roots... Much of it came from the Egyptians to which includes your root base for your idea of "Heaven" .. Christianity didn't exist until the character Jesus was introduced to which is entirely unoriginal considering the bulk of this supposed God incarnate reflects preexisting beliefs.. It's basically saying you believe your evolved version of ancient mythology is magically true while rejecting them and practicing them at the same time.

Take for example God manifesting in the flesh:

This idea isn't new to such religions where they believe the object of their worship manifests itself in the flesh. This concept goes back even further than Jesus as the Pharaohs of Ancient Egypt were sometimes said to be incarnations of the gods Horus and Ra. Yep.. Do not "Horus" to which Jesus is largely plagiarized from:

Quote:
the first real king of Egypt, therefore ruling over the unified land, was Menes, who would have ruled Egypt around 3100 BC, but we have little if any archaeological basis for this name. Most scholars today believe that he may have been a king named Narmer, or more likely still, Aha, two figures that are better attested in the archaeological record. Kings were not only males, and unlike in modern monarchies, the ruler of ancient Egypt, whether male or female, was always called a king. In fact, Egypt had some very noteworthy female rulers such as Hatshepsut and others. In many if not most accounts, the king is viewed as an incarnation of Horus, a falcon god, and the posthumous son of Osiris,

The king himself was the figure upon whom the whole administrative structure of the state rested. This god-king usually commanded tremendous resources. The Pharaoh was the head of the civil administration, the supreme warlord and the chief priest of every god in the kingdom. All offerings were made in his name and the entire priesthood acted in his stead. In fact, he was himself a divine being, considered the physical offspring of a god 

/quote

Yes, Jesus story is largely taken from the story of Horus. Jesus is even referred to as the "KING" and offspring of GOD, or as King of Kings just as were Kings of Egypt... And the point of this is to show you that Christianity is not original, and neither is Jesus.

[quote]
34 Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.[/quote]

Even the Egyptians had a proverb that I would like to express:

- There are two kinds of error: blind credulity and piecemeal criticism. Never believe a word without putting its truth to the test; discernment does not grow in laziness; and this faculty of discernment is indispensable to the Seeker. Sound skepticism is the necessary condition for good discernment; but piecemeal criticism is an error.

This which brings us another interesting thing.. Proverbs in the bible are taken or influenced from the Egyptian Proverbs. Examples:

- The first concerning the 'secrets': all cognition comes from inside; we are therefore initiated only by ourselves, but the Master gives the keys.

- The second concerning the 'way': the seeker has need of a Master to guide him and lift him up when he falls, to lead him back to the right way when he strays.
- Understanding develops by degrees.
- As to deserving, know that the gift of heaven is free; this gift of Knowledge is so great that no effort whatever could hope to 'deserve' it.
- If the Master teaches what is error, the disciple's submission is slavery ; if he teaches truth, this submission is ennoblement.

A very common belief amongst the Egyptians in dealing with their GOD's, idea of afterlife, and their Pharaohs. You can find the following in Christianity to:

Note The Highlighted sections:

Matthew 16:19:
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens (βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν / basileias tōn ouranōn), and whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.?

Egyptians:

- The first concerning the 'secrets': all cognition comes from inside; we are therefore initiated only by ourselves, but the Master gives the keys.

Yay for originality in Christianity? Common Egyptian proverb here are commonly known by Christians to:

- In every vital activity it is the path that matters.
- The way of knowledge is narrow.

Can anyone tell me where in the bible you find the above proverbs? You can also visit here:

Book of Proverbs in relation to Egypt:

www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1195210?uid=3739696&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56173682223

You can also join the BAS library here to see where the Christian proverbs had taken from the Egyptians:

members.bib-arch.org/publication.asp?PubID=BSBA&Volume=24&Issue=3&ArticleID=13

And of course we also have these issues concerning Christianity:

What maxim does Paul attribute to Jesus?

    "Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts xx, 35).

These are not "the words of the Lord Jesus," but of the Pagan Epicurus, a man whose character Christians have for centuries defamed.

Concerning the teachings of Jesus, Col. Thomas W. Higginson says:

    "When they tell me that Jesus taught a gospel of love, I say I believe it. Plato taught a gospel of love before him, and you deny it. If they say, Jesus taught that it is better to bear an injury than to retaliate, I say, yes, but so did Aristotle before Jesus was born. I will accept it as the statement of Jesus if you will admit that Aristotle said it too. I am willing that any man should come before us and say, Jesus taught that you must love your enemies, it is written in the Bible; but, if he will open the old manuscript of Diogenes Laertus, he may there read in texts that have never been disputed, that the Greek philosophers, half a dozen of them, said the same before Jesus was born."

    "That the system of morals propounded in the New Testament contained no maxim which had not been previously enunciated, and that some of the most beautiful passages in the apostolic writings are quotations from Pagan authors, is well known to every scholar.... To assert that Christianity communicated to man moral truths previously unknown, argues on the part of the asserted either gross ignorance or wilful fraud"
    -- Buckle, History of Civilization, Vol. I, p. 129

    "It can do truth no service to blind the fact, known to all who have the most ordinary acquaintance with literary history, that a large portion of the noblest and most valuable moral teaching has been the work not only of men who did not know, but of men who knew and rejected the Christian faith"
    -- John Stuart Mill, Liberty

So, nothing like riding on the backs of others to build a religion.. :/ Christianity is by understanding a copy paste religion.

wow this forum needs formatting tools lol :P

"So, you think the verses which refer to people being made "children of God" negates the idea that Jesus was the "only Son of God"?"

Yes it does negate it.... Child of a GOD will be a Child and it's irrelevant how you think it's made. In either case its claiming to have made both.. This is where they are trying to have their cake and eat it to..

Of course you can trace development of thought! And yes, Hebrew wisdom traditions owe much to Egyptian writings, 'Instructions' and so on. I'm not sure that anyone on this thread has suggested that there was no connection between Jesus and all that cane before him - that would be a stupid thing to say.

Calling Christianity a 'cut and paste' religion is true in one way, in that Christianity emerged from reflection on who Jesus was, in light of the jJewish scriptures which yes, were hugely influenced by other Ancient Near East cultures, so yes, Christianity is not isolated from other cultures. But Christianity does make some claims that are very new - one being the idea of a 'suffering Messiah', which was pretty much unheard of before Christ.

I'm not sure how saying that Christianity is embedded in Jewish thought which is indebted to other cultures has any bearing on its value or truthfulness, though.

[quote]Of course you can trace development of thought! And yes, Hebrew wisdom traditions owe much to Egyptian writings, 'Instructions' and so on. I'm not sure that anyone on this thread has suggested that there was no connection between Jesus and all that cane before him - that would be a stupid thing to say.[quote]

It's much more than that.. It include the origins of the christmas tree, the cross, right down to that very olive branch thorn crown that was used by the egyptians to mark their kings they though were their GOD's manifested in the flesh with their tombs. A good chunk of Christianity essentially is from the Egyptians. No it's not entirely from the Egyptians considering it holds a midian Volcano GOD, and other commonly believe myths surrounding other Pagan GOD's ect.. It's pretty much a mixed mutt. Hence the core of Christian beliefs doesn't come from Christianity.. Not what-so-ever..

Heck, how much do you even know about crusification or where the idea of the Christmas tree comes from? let's take an example of blasphemy:

interpretation of Deuteronomy 21 by the Temple Scroll reflects Jewish priestly halakhah (legal interpretation) from the early second century BC to the fall of the temple, which ordains that the one who is guilty of national treason or blasphemy shall die by being hanged upon the tree. A sinner of this kind should be killed in the most awesome way, by being hanged on the tree before his people (whom he has betrayed) and before God (whom he has blasphemed).

this dealing with hanging from trees most likely came from common beliefs and traditions surrounding "sacred trees" that often dealt with beliefs in dealing with death.. For example the thorn olive branch crown to mark a King.

www.ethnobiomed.com/content/3/1/28

Abstract:

The differences between Muslims and Druze are related to the latter's belief in the transmigration of souls. On the subject of sacred places, Turner [[1]:24] states: "This place where other realms are meet is also indicated by various forms representing a link or connection between the human and transhuman spheres, and usually set in a vertical dimension as a ladder, poles and pillars, trees and hills". Sacred places are found all over the globe and may consist of various artificial objects (buildings, shrines, graves) as well as natural ones (mountains, water source and trees).

And the practice of crucifixion and hanging on trees goes back to Egyptian practice of hanging cursed people. :

Smith's Bible Dictionary say under Crucifixion:

Crucifixion was in used among the Egyptians, Ge 40:19; the Carthaginians, the Persians, Es 7:10; the Assyrians, Scythains, Indians, Germans, and from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans. Whether this mode of execution was known to the ancient Jews is a matter of dispute. Probably the Jews borrowed it from the Romans. It was unanimously considered the most horrible form of death.

Genesis 40:18-19 we read the interpretation of the dream by Joseph(P). It is talking about the 'Pharaoh' in Joseph's(P) time will hang the person on a tree.

"This is what it means," Joseph said. "The three baskets are three days. Within three days Pharaoh will lift off your head and hang you on a tree. And the birds will eat away your flesh." [Genesis 40:18-19]

The New International Dictionary Of The Bible confirms that (Under 'Cross'):

Crucifixion was one of the most cruel and barbarous forms of death known to man. It was practiced, especially in the times of war, by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Egyptians, and later by the Romans. So dreaded was it that even in the pre-Christian era, the cares and troubles of the life were often compared to a cross.[2]

Now the most primitive form of crucifixion was on the trees as the on-line The Catholic Encylopedia states under Archæology of the Cross and Crucifix:

The penalty of the cross goes back probably to the arbor infelix, or unhappy tree, spoken of by Cicero (Pro, Rabir., iii sqq.) and by Livy, apropos of the condemnation of Horatius after the murder of his sister. According to Hüschke (Die Multa, 190) the magistrates known as duoviri perduellion is pronounced this penalty (cf. Liv., I, 266), styled also infelix lignem (Senec., Ep. ci; Plin., XVI, xxvi; XXIV, ix; Macrob., II, xvi). This primitive form of crucifixion on trees was long in use, as Justus Lipsius notes ("De cruce", I, ii, 5; Tert., "Apol.", VIII, xvi; and "Martyrol. Paphnut." 25 Sept.). Such a tree was known as a cross (crux).

Yep, Your symbol the cross is also intended as a visible threat than just simply a symbol of your religion. It's meaning bears deep into the history of the religions in that part of the world. It also gives you a more clear understanding when you hang ornaments on your tree or put the star on top of the tree.

But lets go deeper:

And btw, this is also from the Egyptians:

20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

This has a lot to do with how the Egyptians ruled, and their beliefs in dealing with the Pyramids.. The chief corner stone is the top of the pyramid often represented as the all seeing eye. It's considered unseen governance from above (the heavens) to the people below. This is taken from the Egyptians.. The chief cornerstone of the pyramid is same symbol for Horus, the Egyptian god and savior. It's the same concept stolen and used by Christianity.

I will even quote someone else:

The chief cornerstone of the pyramid is same symbol for Horus, the Egyptian god and savior. Like the Egyptian pharoah, Jesus was called a shepherd who rules the nations with a staff. Horus was a popular Egyptian god who was the son of Osiris and Isis. Osiris and Horus were both solar deities. Osiris was the setting sun, Horus the rising sun. Jesus is the rising Son and the morning star. The pharoah was considered to be an incarnation of Horus (also known as "Amen-Ra," the sun god).

And you can read all about Horus here:

www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/

And if you need a bigger hint.. here you go:

The light of the body is the eye; therefore, when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light; but when thine eye is evil, thy body also is full of darkness. Luke 11:34

This is the day night cycle of the sun GOD. The all seeing eye which the sun represents the eye of the day, and the moon being the eye of the night. This deals with the two eyes of horus with the left eye (the "Eye of Horus") often being regarded as the symbol of the moon and the right eye (the "Eye of Re") being that of the sun

I'm not sure Jesus had a monopoly on suffering. Osiris was murdered, resurrected, and gave new hope through his son Horus. Many pagan traditions predating christianity centre around the wheel of the year where a sun god is born and cut down, to rise again; the earth goddess gives birth to a son/the sun at Yule (incidentally also the time Mithras is supposed to have been born), who is cut down with the harvest and dies at Samhain, to be resurrected again at Yule.

Redmolly, that's a really interesting question. I think it would be hard to say what the difference is, tbh (and of course it's tricky to compare subjective experiences). My idea of the divine has shifted so much over my lifetime - from a personal God-the-Father to a loving presence within and around us all. (John O'Donohue talked about 'my knowing, my solace, my shelter' and I find that to be a really helpful way of thinking). I listen to the Buddhist Tara Brach's podcasts on iTunes (they are so good) - 'Ask the Friend for Love' is particularly relevant here - and she talks about prayer being an expression of our deepest longings. I tend to pray like that - asking about specific things - in my morning writing. I do mindfulness meditation but I don't think of that as prayer. I know that both have been shown to have a hugely positive impact though - I'm really interested in the emerging work around contemplation and neurobiology. IME it's been really helpful to do both the directed prayer and the meditation.

That's a slightly odd argument,tbh. Are you saying that Christianity can't be true / truthful if it reflects ideas from other cultures? I'm surprised that you haven't picked up on Greek philosophy if that is what you think. There seems to be an assumption behind what you are saying (if this is indeed what you're saying) that for Christianity to be true, it must be utterly new and bear no relation to anything that has gone before. To me, that would be a much more difficult faith to defend than one that develops over time. You are, of course, avoiding the obvious point I made earlier, that the claims made of Jesus are pretty unique - the 'suffering Messiah' was a startlingly new idea in the 1st c. Paul talks about the 'scandal of the cross.'

It's all very interesting. I'd be astonished if Jesus hadn't existed in some form - the Pauline epistles were written within a couple of decades of his death with plenty of his disciples still around. But how much of the Gospels are based on second or third hand eyewitness accounts, and how much on reimaginings to fulfil OT prophecies?

Jackal, there's too much for me to respond to in your very long cut and paste post there - but yes, Deuteronomy's edict that anyone who hangs upon a tree is cursed is central to the NT - if you read Galatians you'll find Paul quoting that very verse and saying that Jesus became curse for us so that we might be free of the curse - so it's not adequate to simply say that the NT takes ideas from the OT, but to be truthful, we need to acknowledge that it does so in such a way as to re-interpret them quite radically. Galatians does quote Deuteronomy, but it radically re-frames how Deuteronomy is to be understood.

And the major point here is that most of Jesus's story is not original and predates him.. The story is is basically ripped mostly from Egypt and also from preexisting beliefs from other polytheistic religions ect.. It's not a surprise, and in fact, people like Jesus were almost a dime a dozen in that era, and Jesus was really not even known about really until after the Gospels. There is no contemporary record of his existence. And the supposed teaching of love ect also predated him..

Basically how I see it.. Jesus was invented to adapt and take over the competing Pagan religions by adopting their beliefs in some form or another. Kind like assimilating them.. And depending on the belief, it's either demonized or taken and practiced.. Kinda like your idea of Heaven comes from the Egyptians, and the idea of Lucifer comes from the Pagans or the Babylonian king in regards to the morning star Venus (that which of course is actually a planet that which dealt with love and lust)..You know that satan influencing adam and eve in the garden? ... naughty!

That's very interesting rookery. I feel i am connecting with something deeper when i meditate, and while i don't believe in god/gods i do feel there is a connection between all living things, and maybe the sum of all those sparks of life (souls if you like) is a great conciousness of which we are all part and from where we come and where we return. Waves on an ocean.

Jackal, Jesus wasn't invented, he really lived. No serious scholar doubts this. And to be clear, when you say 'pagans' you mean who? And which do you see the 'competing religions' as being, on the 1st c?

[quote]that for Christianity to be true, it must be utterly new and bear no relation to anything that has gone before.[quote]

To ignore the fact they are directly taken from them while calling them myths at the same time trying to exclaim they don't mean they aren't true is quite the self-refuting argument. Here's even another example:

Stilling of the Tempest (Mark 4:35ff.)

Well, lets evaluate that shall we?:

12. The Stilling of the Storm (4:35-41)

Helms (pp. 76, 77) demonstrates how this story has been rewritten from Jonah?s adventure, with additions from certain of the Psalms. The basis for the story can be recognized in Jonah 1:4-6, ?But the Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up. Then the mariners were afraid, and each cried to his god? But Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship and had lain down, and was fast asleep. So the captain came and said to him, ?What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, that we do not perish.? Once Jonah turns out to be the guilty party, they throw him into the maw of the sea, ?and the sea ceased from its raging. The men feared the LORD exceedingly? (1:15b-16a). See also Psalm 107:23-29: ?Some went down to the sea in ships, doing business on the great waters; they saw the deeds of the LORD, his wondrous works in the deep. For he commanded, and raised the stormy wind, which lifted up the waves of the sea. They mounted up to the heavens, they went down unto the depths; their courage melted away in their evil plight; they reeled and staggered like drunken men, and were at their wits? end. Then they cried to the LORD in their trouble, and he delivered them from their distress; he made the storm be still, and the waves of the sea were hushed.?

Mark was aware of a similar episode in the Odyssey 10:1-69, in which Odysseus set sail with his dozen ships from the Isle of Aeolus, the god of winds. Aeolus had given Odysseus a bag containing mighty winds in case he should be stalled in the doldrums. Odysseus falls asleep in the hold, and his men sneak a peek into the bag, letting the winds escape. The ships managed to survive the storm, but Odysseus rebuked his crew for their dangerous folly. MacDonald (pp. 68, 174-175) indicates the origin of Jesus? rebuke to the disciples here (Mark 1:40), as well as the puzzling detail in Mark 1:36 that Jesus and the disciples were accompanied by ?other boats.? It makes no sense in Mark and must be understood as a vestige of the Odyssey.

Man it's so easy to toss around stories these days :/ Not that which doesn't include Genesis 1 vs the Babylonian creation story, or Gilgamesh vs the Ark story ect. It's quite obvious of the influences of various religions and cultures had on Christianity.. You go yourself the volcano god, the sun god, the common myths and folklore of the time periods and the region all rolled up in one religion that is now over 30,000 sects, and 3 different religions based around the same god.. The truth always has been that Christianity is an evolved version of those ancient religions and beliefs. And it takes a lot of ignorance to think It's not..

But if you want to claim they are suddenly now true.. Feel free to prove it. :/