Implications of the Biblical Interventionist God

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
There are some powerful Christians that must adhere to protocol because they know of no alternate way .. the unconsious god is not in their repitoir and thus paranoid wealth! Much fear of looking out there ... oh Lou RD do I have to process more? (RD may represent reflective R&D by those working under cover ... sub dudes? Alsoo some red ladies ... burned by tyranical powers of the demanding type? Note: little humility due to the elite systems ...

What kind of power would rule over domains presently unconscious to the elite? Nonelite .... that's optimally black for relating in the skins ...
 
And yet in Luke ch. 17, Jesus says naught about the faith of ten who were healed from a skin disease, but rather notes that only one (a 'foreigner') turns back to say thanks. No praise for "healing faith." Just words about the lack of gratitude from the nine. Why was there no comment about THEIR "unprecedented powerful faith?"
 
Redbaron said:
And yet in Luke ch. 17, Jesus says naught about the faith of ten who were healed from a skin disease, but rather notes that only one (a 'foreigner') turns back to say thanks. No praise for "healing faith." Just words about the lack of gratitude from the nine. Why was there no comment about THEIR "unprecedented powerful faith?"
Click to expand...
You missed the point about the healing of the centurion's servant; so I gave you Jesus' answer, which you had overlooked. "Unprecedcented" means "one of a kind," and so, by definition that faith would not be replicated in the 9 lepers. Yet the very fact that the 9 lepers addressed Jesus as "Lord" and pleaded with Him to heal them already suggests that they had faith in Jesus' power to heal. Like Mark in my personal example, Jesus had the gift of healing.
The 9 lepers would obviously be grateful for their healing; they just overlooked the courtesy of returning to express that gratitude personally to Jesus.
 
Mystic said:
You missed the point about the healing of the centurion's servant; so I gave you Jesus' answer, which you had overlooked. "Unprecedcented" means "one of a kind," and so, by definition that faith would not be replicated in the 9 lepers. Yet the very fact that the 9 lepers addressed Jesus as "Lord" and pleaded with Him to heal them already suggests that they had faith in Jesus' power to heal. Like Mark in my personal example, Jesus had the gift of healing.
The 9 lepers would obviously be grateful for their healing; they just overlooked the courtesy of returning to express that gratitude personally to Jesus.
Click to expand...
A). Jesus says in Matt. 8 that he had found no such faith in any In Israel, nothing about 'one of a kind,' just an indication that his own people didn't have such faith.

B) Obviously grateful? All of them? Only ONE was obviously grateful. Nothing In the story as Luke's Gospel relates it indicates that they were all obviously grateful. To make such an assumption would be to read into the text something that isn't there, i.e. Eisogesis, which I believe is frowned upon in theological circles.
 
Redbaron said:
A). Jesus says in Matt. 8 that he had found no such faith in any In Israel, nothing about 'one of a kind,' just an indication that his own people didn't have such faith.
Click to expand...
The territory of Israel embraces Judea, Samaria, and Galilee. Jesus celebrates the Samaritan's exuberant expression of gratitude, not the quality of his faith, which was in any case sufficient for healing. Thus, Jesus tells the epileptic boy's father who seeks a healing for his son: "If you can (believe)--all things can be done for the one who believes."
Redbaron said:
B) Obviously grateful? All of them? Only ONE was obviously grateful. Nothing In the story as Luke's Gospel relates it indicates that they were all obviously grateful. To make such an assumption would be to read into the text something that isn't there, i.e. Eisogesis, which I believe is frowned upon in theological circles.
Click to expand...
Who wouldn't be grateful if they were a socially ostracized and isolated leper whose healing allowed them to rejoin society, work for a living, and return to their families? Duh. In any case, this thread is about healing faith, not gratitude.
 
Last edited:
paradox3 said:
Is it just me or is this conversation hard to follow?
Click to expand...
To simplify: the thread deals with implications of the interventionist God by addressing 3 points.
Point (1) establishes that God positively intervenes both within and outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition and is not exclusivistic.
Point (2) argues that, though God is experienced personally as a loving God, God is in essence not a Person, whose actions and policies can be deduced from what would be expected from a loving parent. Texts were cited where God denies He is human or male, whose ways and thoughts can be inferred via human analogy.

What I plan to post on next:
(1) My next planned post will survey the feminine imagery of God in the OT and the Gospels, imagery that points to nurturing experiences of the divine but not to the Personhood of God any more than the masculine imagery does.
(2) Finally, my most important point: At creation God brought order out of chaos, but never completely controls the forces of Chaos (caused by the impersonal operation of the laws of Nature). Bad things happen to good people in part because God is not in control of natural disasters, human abuse of free will, accidents, and blind chance. Therefore, divine intervention is a mystery that must account for these facts and often is thwarted by the laws of Nature. Thus, God cannot be blamed when bad things happen to good or innocent people and the popular concept of divne omnipotence needs to be retought in this light. That is the consensus of OT scholars. So stay tuned.
 
How does one cool the heated chaos? When trying to manipulate from what's natural ... it gets supernatural and then explodes ... not all that peaceful kind of God some believe in until the edge situation comes up ... then folks get edgy and back away from eternal journals ... because they know this may go on someplace NU ... out there as the spatial junk condenses! There's a thought coming down ...
 
Mystic said:
To simplify: the thread deals with implications of the interventionist God by addressing 3 points.
Point (1) establishes that God positively intervenes both within and outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition and is not exclusivistic.
Click to expand...

You haven't even started to prove that point. You've pointed to passages that most of us know well, that suggests that the One God is One God, for all people, a certain demonstrated level of inclusivity that many here argue all of the time. (Usually against unsafe, if the truth be known.)

However, what you're missing is the proof of positive (or negative, in fact) intervention. Any proof at all, not anecdotes, and not "George was cured of an incurable cancer" testimonies, because it clearly wasn't actually incurable if was cured, and doctors are clearly not gods. Statistics would be handy. Surely, in a country as purportedly religious as the U.S. there would be a better percentage of "proper pray-ers" than in a godless secular society like France, for instance. Do Americans have a longer life expectancy than French people? (No, not by a long shot - 79.11 vs 83.1).
 
Last edited:
In the OT the patriarchal masculine imagery of Yahweh is balanced by often graphic and tender feminine imagery.
Here are just 4 among the many intimate maternal images of God as a Mother.
(1) God as a Mother Carrying Her Child in Her Womb:
"Listen to me... all the remnant of the house of Israel, who have been born by me from the belly, carried from the womb, even unto old age Isaiah 46:3-4)."

(2) God as a Mother in Labor Pains:
"But now I (Yahweh) cry out as a woman in labor, gasping and panting (Isaiah 42:13-14)"

(3) God as a Comforting Mother:
"Like a son comforted by his mother, so will I comfort you (Isaiah 66:12-13)."

(4) God as a Comforting Mother, Feeding Her Child and Teaching it to Walk:
"When Israel was a child, I loved him... It was I who taught Ephraim (Israel) to walk... I led them with reins of kindness, with leading-strings of love. I was like someone who lifts an infant close against her cheek; stooping down to him, I gave him his food... I am God and not a male (Hosea 11:2, 3, :9)"

Jesus views Himself as the Child of Lady Sophia and Her mouthpiece (Luke 7:35; 11:49-51). In 2 parables He uses a woman losing a coin and another woman concealing yeast in flour as symbols of God (Luke 13:20-21; 15:8-20).
 
Lovely imagery, etc., and I love the anti-gendered material, but still, provides no interventionist truth...
 
I actually believe that prayer and or a belief in Godde may offer relief of suffering for some people, myself included. Totally related to a Taoist belief that to live is to suffer to some degree, and to give your pain away to the Universe, as you can, might be helpful.

There's just no evidence for a supernatural interventionist god in my experience. Not that my eyes can see, or the eyes of the scientific-evidence type people can.
 
Berserk, you will totally never believe me, nor will you ever convince me.

My complete truth: It is random. The arc of the Universe is positive, but not personal.

Hard on the ego, for sure.
 
Jesus, Berserk, are you trying to woo me? (I am chuckling with irritation here; I don't think anyone who has ever had a child die can ever forgive you...)

To me, honestly, and so I should just leave this thread:

You can never take back the suggestion that if a person had prayed correctly, their child might have lived.
 
Bette: "You can never take back the suggestion that if a person had prayed correctly, their child might have lived."

As usual, you are putting words in my mouth. You seem to be on the brink of a nervous wreck over the possibility that your theological position on divine interventionism may be decisively refuted when I finally answer issue (3) in my OP. For now I will just offer this testimony: When I was A UCC interim pastor for 3 1/2 years, we prayed for a baby with a fatal condition prompting doctors to state that the baby would never leave the hospital alive. In my UMC western NY church we prayed for a baby with a similarly diagnosed lethal condition. Both babies defied their doctors pontification and thrived. Praise God!
 
If one prays hard enough for the pain to shift to the alternate people ... will a believer have luck with the denial syndrome? Thus the ultimate thing happens as the onus of total freedom shifts to those taking on the consequence ... difficult to accept for those with the goal of nothing on their private psyche.

This vacuous domain is difficult to escape ... until something gravid affects them ... heavies thus fall ... the alternate comes up ... and the heavy's don't like it ... so it is demonized as anti emperor ... a grand myth about a rye thing ... verily stripped of empathy and thus suffering antipathy! This may occur like nothing ... there's a lot of it out there ... resembles heaven as someone departed with all the thoughts ... diabolical ah? Literal debacle ... close to a' Din ... natural sows and eddies ... thus the car esse ... spirit of the vessel!

Esse is sometimes defined as essence of nature and rightists are up against nature as it tends to environmentalism ... there nature gives up ... with con sequence ... the line reappears ... dis believable eh? Thus the ease of denial ... just to tease those naked sols ... rye and sometimes mean as Scotched! Jumped up ...
 
Last edited:
The Oxford Dictionary describes trolling as making “a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them”.

Yes. Time for me to leave this and any other thread begun by this one. DNFT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top