doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
No. Looking in a filthy mirror and calling what you see "God" is silly. :flirt:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
If God is omnipresent, He is also in hell.
- Thread starter robo
- Start date
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
That's what I said, Allah is present everywhere through his seeing, knowing and hearing all.
Omnipresence doesn't mean being present physically. Does it?
Shuddhasattva
Well-Known Member
Just want to offer a correction/clarification here. I believe you posted this along the intent of "Hinduism does not believe in the Abrahamic hell," but hell (Naraka) is certainly a part of Hindu philosophy/cosmology.
It coincides with hell insofar as it's a place where one goes after death (exoterically, esoterically it is present, and can be mindfully entered while alive) and experiences torments consonant with one's sins. It's not eternal in most every branch of Hinduism.
The school of madhava however does believe in eternal hell, although it isn't that big a part of the doctrine. It's... nonetheless very repulsive to me.
As far as control... Hinduism does and doesn't believe that God controls.
One way of explaining it is that God simply is. Presence. His presence causes all things to come about, as if willed, but without god actually willing or participating. This is not an absolute teaching, and is often taught in tandem with both more strenuous assertions of god's will and his involvement in creation, as well as more detached views.
Samvit absorbs/dissolves such seemingly contradictory views in a paradoxical, viewless awareness.
But... there are many teachings based around the concept of god as a controller, although god himself in the form of Krishna announces that he doesn't interfere with free will/svadharma.
That's what I thought, you meant, but I wasn't sure. Thanks. 
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
Seeing and hearing are physical interactions. Light waves are received by sensitive nerve cells in the inner eye and processed by neurons in the brain into usable information. Hearing is the product of sound waves moving through the air vibrating tiny bones in the inner ear, the patterns of which trigger memory and response when these patterns are transmitted as electrical signals to neurons.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
You asked if seeing and hearing require physical presence. They do.
Yes, I thought of Naraka but I didn't want to complicate things and compare it to the Abrahamic Hell.
It's closer in concept to Purgatory. Purgatory is not a permanent place, but a place to purge one's final sins, hence the name Purgatory. I myself experience it here for reasons I won't go into, nor need to.
I believe it in the way Sri Krishna describes... He does not interfere with svadharma. However, He says that He pervades and supports the entire universe by a small part of His divine power. In another verse in the Gita He says explicitly that not a blade of grass grows without His support.
So it's true that God does and does not control. It's a matter of what He does and does not control.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
To clarify: I'm saying that if you claim your "God" thing can "hear" and "see" without physically interacting with the universe you aren't actually talking about seeing and hearing and are just making something up to fit some psychological need dressed up as theology.
Your last question means nothing to me, and I have no answer to it.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
doppelgänger;2972291 said:
My last question may not mean much to you but it means much to me. To you nothing can exist outside of this universe, so God must be confined within this universe and must have human traits.
That's a very uneducated view. You should learn what religions teach about God. You don't believe in God yet when he is mentioned, he must conform to your ideas and concepts.
waitasec
Veteran Member
the blind leading the blind...
there is absolutely no way any religion can support what they claim except through blind faith...a vice in my book.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Please do enlighten a blind man like me.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
I don't think you have tried to understand what I have written. And it's not my intent to make you do so.My last question may not mean much to you but it means much to me. To you nothing can exist outside of this universe, so God must be confined within this universe and must have human traits.
That's a very uneducated view. You should learn what religions teach about God. You don't believe in God yet when he is mentioned, he must conform to your ideas and concepts.
I hope you find peace in your endeavors.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i can't i'm blind too.
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Nice way to save your skin or is it?
waitasec
Veteran Member
religion is people leading people and making blanket statements about something that is absolutely undefinable. at least i know i don't know and i am not afraid to admit it
question is, why aren't you?
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
I don't quite understand your point. Are you asking why I don't admit that there is no God or that I just don't know if there is a God?
In addition to redefining omnipresence, your definition of omnipresence is no different from the definition of omniscience.
Why have two different words referring to the same thing?