Where do YOU think G-d is?

[wizanda]

Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people?

God is the CPU manifesting reality; it only outputs, and doesn't take...

Therefore because we're near Hell, the things we see down here are expectable; here is a harsh environment for illogical beings to try and learn Oneness, through equal and opposite reactions.

That is to say, do you think he's just ignoring us, punishing us, or some other third thing?

Here is a good environment to learn from, it is a pleasure realm, where we can enjoy it; yet due to all the demons down here, it is getting worse, as many are in denial of the facts of reality.

For example, say a child went through some severe abuse for the majority of their life. Where do you think G-d would be in that instance?

The CPU (God) can only influence good, it has no negative affects other than to format reality, and start again.

Often the good die early released on good behavior...

There is Karma for every action within the Matrix; yet clearly some of the constraints are not working on some, as many have created ways to circumnavigate reasoning, that nothing happens by chance.

 

[Serpent Child]

Do void meditation and you will know.
Satanic Void Meditation

 

[Native]

Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people?

IMO "Gods and Goddesses" are just human mythical names for "powers and motions in the creation" and natural forces in the creation is completely indifferent over human conditions, which is entirely up to us humans.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

My question posed to anyone willing to answer is: Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people? That is to say, do you think he's just ignoring us, punishing us, or some other third thing?

For example, say a child went through some severe abuse for the majority of their life. Where do you think G-d would be in that instance?

I keep answering this question, but it never sinks in with those who believe in revealed religion--or atheists who are only interested in exposing those revealed religions.

God must not interact or even become known to us, in order to maintain our free will. All such examples of apparently needless suffering, are monuments to God's (if God exists) commitment to our free will--the ONLY apparent reason for creating this natural, rational universe, as a stage to exercise our moral free will, free from divine influence.

 

[Desert Snake]

Freewill》thread

 

[Desert Snake]

I keep answering this question, but it never sinks in with those who believe in revealed religion--or atheists who are only interested in exposing those revealed religions.

God must not interact or even become known to us, in order to maintain our free will. All such examples of apparently needless suffering, are monuments to God's (if God exists) commitment to our free will--the ONLY apparent reason for creating this natural, rational universe, as a stage to exercise our moral free will, free from divine influence.

Never stops anyone from religious adherence

 

[Quintessence]

In your mind . . . where He always is!

Um... what? What are you talking about? Did you mean to quote me there?

 

[james bond]

My question posed to anyone willing to answer is: Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people? That is to say, do you think he's just ignoring us, punishing us, or some other third thing?

For example, say a child went through some severe abuse for the majority of their life. Where do you think G-d would be in that instance?

Some say he's in another dimension, but I think he's all around us and in every fabric of our existence. However, the way the system is set up he does not control the decisions or outcomes. It's still truth of consequences. The Christians say God allows these good or bad things to happen, but isn't the cause.

 

[Fool]

My question posed to anyone willing to answer is: Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people? That is to say, do you think he's just ignoring us, punishing us, or some other third thing?

For example, say a child went through some severe abuse for the majority of their life. Where do you think G-d would be in that instance?

if god is seen as separate from self; then god is depraved indifferent. If god is omnipresent, then God is still with the abused vs the abuser; which does not recognize other as self.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm always impressed by the number of otherwise intelligent people who refuse to see what is right in front of their noses when it comes to pain and suffering.

 

[suncowiam]

I presume you meant to target this only to theists who believe in a classical monotheist type god that is omniscient and omnibenevolent? The question doesn't make much sense otherwise.

How many definitions of God do we need if we can't prove any definitions of God?

Could there actually be a valid answer given on any question about God, and on any definition of God?

 

[EtuMalku]

Um... what? What are you talking about? Did you mean to quote me there?

Oops . . . I wanted to quote the OP, how the heck did that happen?

 

[Grandliseur]

My question posed to anyone willing to answer is: Where do you think G-d is when bad things happen to good or innocent people? That is to say, do you think he's just ignoring us, punishing us, or some other third thing?

For example, say a child went through some severe abuse for the majority of their life. Where do you think G-d would be in that instance?

The problem you address is one of the things that may cause so many people become atheists. Even when knowing the explanation for the suffering, it surely is not easy to be rational cold logical about it when the suffering is one's own. I know of a now deceased elderly person who became blind and deaf, but otherwise was healthy. She prayed God for it to end, and it did but not right away. I guess God judged the moment it was right for the person to die.

The cause of our suffering is as follows:
1. Mankind rebelled against God, rejected his theocracy. He granted us self rule until it were established if we could rule ourselves without self-destructing ourselves and the planet. The end is near, the answer is now at hand for even the renowned scientists who embrace evolution tell us that we have about 100 years left on the planet.

2. We live in a cause and effect universe. Our choice was self rule, and we suffer the effects of our own choice.
3. If God made it so that there was no suffering, would we come to know that this choice is no good! This is why we are permitted to suffer. In this way, some of us come to believe that only God can give us rulership that will solve our problems. We come to crave to obey God.
4. God doesn't want to be out there with a whip and police on every corner in the form of angels, etc. He wants us to desire to follow his laws since one might say, "Obedience is victory!" (A phrase from Star Trek that tells us in the real world what it takes to live with God) If God then lets a society of people come to be that have his laws in their hearths and want to obey them, society becomes perfect.
5. The dead will be judged, the wicked shall forever perish (sleep in death), the others resurrected, some who didn't know God will be taught what is needed to survive, others will also be taught but merely as a matter of catch-up.
------

Presently, even Christians are permitted to suffer seriously. We are told it is our privilege to suffer for Christ as he suffered for us. We are also told that because we suffer now, we shall rejoice when Paradise comes.

Why is that necessary?
Paradise shall not be paradise to a great many who are resurrected and given the chance to live forever. Why?
Because the great disparity between haves and have-nots will not be permitted. This shall cause a huge difference in the way life is implemented --which of course we will have to wait and see what exactly that means. There will be no more wars, or illnesses, there will be no more crime and murders. All this will be controlled from above so that true evildoers will be killed quickly. None will be able to hide sexual abuse, or any other type of abuse. None will be able to do hit-and-run or any other type of serious crime without being punished.

As scripture says, everyday God shall see to it that serious offenders are punished as needed.

 

[Quintessence]

How many definitions of God do we need if we can't prove any definitions of God?

No definitions of any word in any language can be proven - they're presuppositions or things that are simply granted. So I'm not sure how this argument follows.

Could there actually be a valid answer given on any question about God, and on any definition of God?

Yes, absolutely. Theology is, after all, a thing. Besides, all "valid" means at the end of the day is "some human happens to agree with it."

 

[suncowiam]

No definitions of any word in any language can be proven - they're presuppositions or things that are simply granted. So I'm not sure how this argument follows.



Yes, absolutely. Theology is, after all, a thing. Besides, all "valid" means at the end of the day is "some human happens to agree with it."

Your first statement is not making sense. Of course, the definition of some words can be proven. They're not all presuppositions. There is actually a thing as reality and there are words to properly describe it.

There is a thing called theology but this is purely man-made. Theology exists but many of the ideals in theology has yet to be proven and cannot be said to exist.

By the way, it is contradictory to even have more than one definition of God, given the primary use and history of the word God.

 

[ShivaFan]

Sometime last year, I "became" a Nationalist in addition to my ongoing ideations including conservative, capitalist, Hindu, etc..

In part this was not a strange evolution for me, because I was involved in Hindu Nationalism largely in the 1980s and early 90s, which is not the same as the current global Nationalist movement but also involves Hindu Nationalists such as the BJP, RSS et all.

European and US Nationalists differ upon observation from US Conservatives on the question of God.

The Nationalist view has in effect reinforced my already existing views. While most US Conservatives are "Christians" and come from the viewpoint of God regarding social issues and think we should largely be "converting" others (e.g. to Christianity) and be "loving" to others in general like Jesus, the Nationalists have pretty much a different view regarding God.

To MOST Nationalists, God has nothing to do with our destiny good or bad - it is up to us as HUMANS. In fact, most Nationalists de-emphasize "God" per say, and do not like the idea of "one God" who "saves us all" nor should it be part of the domestic politics situation. Many Nationalists think, if there is a God at all, these are "powers" much like in the pagan view which are "all over the place" and universes but even "they" have some "issues" now and then.

We all need to form and lead and participate in our own destiny or hopes and dreams and not rely on "God" to save us. Nationalists in large part do not think we should sit around and hope "God will come out of the sky and save us". That human existence is full of hopes but also struggles, evolves over time and so it is up to us. A Nationalist will say "God bless America" but that is to keep "the spirit of loyalty" more than a God centric view.

In part this is somewhat close to my Hindu view, however many Hindus do not share this and Hinduism is very, very, very diverse.

 

[Quintessence]

Your first statement is not making sense. Of course, the definition of some words can be proven. They're not all presuppositions. There is actually a thing as reality and there are words to properly describe it.

It sounds like you are mistaking map for territory? Words are a type of symbol. They are a way of referencing a thing, not the thing itself. You can't prove/disprove someone's chosen symbolic representations - they just are. If someone tells me "I define God as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being" then... well... that's how that person defines God. There's nothing to prove about it - they just told me that's how they define God and it is what it is. Whether or not the territory the symbol is referencing "exists" to you is generally a separate question.

There is a thing called theology but this is purely man-made. Theology exists but many of the ideals in theology has yet to be proven and cannot be said to exist.

If that's how you feel about it, I guess?

By the way, it is contradictory to even have more than one definition of God, given the primary use and history of the word God.

Just so that we're all aware, you don't even have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary to notice that the entry for "God" always has more than one definition associated with it. And given dictionaries give more simplistic and superficial appraisals of word usage, the few lines that are in there hardly scratch the surface of the diverse ways in which the term is used across cultures.

 

[suncowiam]

It sounds like you are mistaking map for territory? Words are a type of symbol. They are a way of referencing a thing, not the thing itself. You can't prove/disprove someone's chosen symbolic representations - they just are. If someone tells me "I define God as an omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent being" then... well... that's how that person defines God. There's nothing to prove about it - they just told me that's how they define God and it is what it is. Whether or not the territory the symbol is referencing "exists" to you is generally a separate question.



If that's how you feel about it, I guess?



Just so that we're all aware, you don't even have to go to the Oxford English Dictionary to notice that the entry for "God" always has more than one definition associated with it. And given dictionaries give more simplistic and superficial appraisals of word usage, the few lines that are in there hardly scratch the surface of the diverse ways in which the term is used across cultures.

You are being very technical and that is obfuscating the subject.

There are many theories that have been proven but a theory is no more than a bunch of sentences and words. As you know, these theories are 100% reliable given any context. If not then by definition they are no longer theories.

Concerning God, I referenced the primary use so I'm not denying multiple definitions of the word. We don't question all the definitions of word when referenced. Every word has multiple definitions but you choose to highlight God. That is is inefficient and again, obfuscates the original dialog. We know the meaning of a word by context. You knew what the OP meant by his use of God.

I understand you believe in a different version of God(s), but that is not what we are talking about considering what is commonly accepted in the broader community and even civilization.

[Edited] I'm wrong with civilization. The community is the context of this discussion.

 

[Quintessence]

We know the meaning of a word by context. You knew what the OP meant by his use of God.

Not really, no... which is why my first post was in the form of a presumption that I was hoping the OP would clarify for us. I would tend to expect that in a place like Interfaith Discussion all paths and all theological perspectives could comment, but I'm just not sure with the OP.

Regardless, I get the sense you are missing the point of the objection I had to your earlier comment. I'm not sure how to rectify that, and as this isn't a debate area of the forums, I'm just going to leave it alone.

 

[suncowiam]

Not really, no... which is why my first post was in the form of a presumption that I was hoping the OP would clarify for us. I would tend to expect that in a place like Interfaith Discussion all paths and all theological perspectives could comment, but I'm just not sure with the OP.

Regardless, I get the sense you are missing the point of the objection I had to your earlier comment. I'm not sure how to rectify that, and as this isn't a debate area of the forums, I'm just going to leave it alone.

Every time you ask the question, hasn't the reply been the same monotheistic God.

Your question is basically rhetorical at this point, referencing to your belief of God and not the actual OP.