Where is God?

[sojourner]

:::Twilight Zone Theme Playing:::

Commence to thwacking the doorstop...:bkcat:

 

[Cobblestones]

Why the hell should you throw a filthy blanket over God to hide God?

Huh? How would that even be possible?

I'm not making God sound like a nincompoop. I'm holding humanity accountable for losing track of God.

This would be the same god that you believe exists? How could one lose track of god? That makes no sense.

No, it isn't. It's a whole lot more like a snotty, entitled, know-it-all teenager who storms out of the house because he doesn't want daddy "meddling in my life." Daddy goes the extra mile to retrieve Sonny Boy, even though he's a complete jerk, utilizing all the broadcast and communications techniques available to the culture, and Brat does everything he can do to avoid receiving the communications. Patiently, daddy waits at the door with the porch light on, trusting that, one day, his son will return.

That's a lovely story but somewhat lacking in demonstrable qualities. I ain't never seen any such person. If he exists and is so powerful then I am perfectly willing to acknowledge him/her as soon as he/she shows up. Until then, I'm not listening to someone else's fairy story.

But not nearly so entitled, bratty and pushy.

Seriously? Ever read the Christian Scriptures or Church fathers? Talk about one who is "entitled"!

Humanity's doing the running and hiding.

Um, how do you run from something that isn't there exactly? There is no "from" to run from.

 

[slave2six]

Commence to thwacking the doorstop...

I don't want to hurt you...

 

[slave2six]

That's not the only vehicle for understanding. Who's talking through whose hat?

You are, apparently. Let's use this simple definition "to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something" for the word "understand." Now, using this definition, explain to me how you or anyone else "understands" god and why there are so many opposing "understandings" about god. Indeed, if I read your posts correctly, it is your contention that we cannot really understand god. Is that right? So how can you make dogmatic statements about what god does/doesn't do?

Cobbles is right - it's up to god to communicate with us, not the other way around. his/her/its failure to do so and the fact that you and the billions of other "believers" are simply making up something that makes sense to you clearly indicates that no deity has in fact present himself/herself/itself to humanity - unless it suffers from multiple personality disorder which is possible.

 

[slave2six]

I doubt that was your point, since the whole springy doorstop illustration wasn't posted until after your cheap shot. Care to try again?

Care to pay attention to the thread? That was my cheap shot, thank you very much. Credit where due please.

 

[slave2six]

First, the Bible contains the printed name of God. That alone is enough to make it holy. Second, "communication" is not the reason the Bible is valuable, either as a document or a sacred object. The point wasn't the way we treat the Bible. The point was how we treat language, especially sacred language. Understand, now?

"Sacred language"? It was written in human words, right? Do you really think that a deity which, by definition is super-human, uses the actual name "god" or "Yahweh" or any other we use? Words are words. There is nothing "sacred" about them. That is superstitious nonsense.

Say the magic word...

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

God retreats into our background as we do our best to drown him out with a glut of language and noise.

And you get that "knowledge" from where?
It would actually amaze me that "we" do "our best" to drown him.
Believers tend not to do that.
And believers in different religions also don't.
Why would they if they believed in God.
I guess YOU do not do your best either to drown him.

And most nonbelievers actually dont do it since they dont believe in it anyway.

Apart of that i find it rather strange to argue that GOD retreats into our brackground because of the noise of some tiny humans.
He wouldnt "force" himself onto humans if he showed up. He would actually just show his existence.

Why wouldn't you be? Aren't you part of the human race?

Sure i am a human. So what? How is that related to be being "at fault"?

Beside us, below us, above us, before us, behind us, within us, and in between us.

And you detect him how?

Time means nothing. An act of God 2000 years ago is an act of God right now.

You should say that time means noting for God (which I would doubt). It actually means something for us.
So again the simple question: where is God, where are his acts. Supposedly they happened all day long in the old age. Strangely only now when we have science and could perhaps actually understand something about this universe ... only now he doesnt act or come forth.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Not at all. If it's miracles you want, these are a dime a dozen. It's not as if we are absent reports of these. If by "manifestation" you mean something like a prophet or an incarnation like Jesus, the Christian claim is that Christ is God's final word so to speak. After him, we can expect no more prophets. Meantime, we have God's written word and his active presence (Holy Spirit) in the world.

As we know there are enough people that believe that either Jesus was not the last prophet (muslims) or that he was not one at all (jews, atheists).
There is no particular reason why Jesus would have to be Gods last messenger, especially if we look at the current state of the "teachings" and the practical implementation in this world. there are more than enough arguments for a supposedly caring and intervening god to represent himself to a forgetting humanity with limited memory and brains that he supposedly has given them in the first place.
IF his intention actually was to have us with him in love and if he actually was as intervening as claimed to be by many people, why dont we see anything?
One answer might be: because he doesnt exist.
Of course this goes against the very teachings of your religion so i can understand that such a conclusion is outside of your possibilities.
thats why it would interest me to see how you explain his nonappearance, his nonacting, his noncaring.

If we compare the "saga" in the bible about Gods acts (and i do not mean merely small "miracles" like healing blind people) then we see a great discrepancy between supposed acts of him in the past and those now.
Look at all the disasters, or other "great" acts that involved the whole of humanity or had effects on whole cities.
Nowadays all we get are "reports" of single nontestable events that nobody can actually proove to be anything else but a natural effect or a hoax.
Of course we still have some folks like Pat Robertson and others that claim any disaster (like the new orleans flood) to be an act of God.... much like priests did in former times. Today however less people actually believe that to be true.

 

[mohammed_beiruti]

do you know a place outside universe (earh and heavens)?

suppose that the unierse has a ceiling, do you know apace above that ceiling?

verily, the creater(-who does not needs any help from any one any thing-) of that universe is greater than it.

 

[sojourner]

Huh? How would that even be possible?

Even you must have heard of a "metaphor?"

How could one lose track of god? That makes no sense.

ever been so focused on something that you forget anyone else is in the room?

That's a lovely story but somewhat lacking in demonstrable qualities.

So was yours. Ever hear of a simile?

If he exists and is so powerful then I am perfectly willing to acknowledge him/her as soon as he/she shows up.

Obviously, you're not perfectly willing.

Until then, I'm not listening to someone else's fairy story.

See?

Seriously? Ever read the Christian Scriptures or Church fathers? Talk about one who is "entitled"!

In what way do either the NT or the Fathers display "entitlement???"

Um, how do you run from something that isn't there exactly?

"Maybe if I shut my eyes, it'll go away."
"LALALALALALA! I'm not listening!"

I don't want to hurt you...

how could you possibly hurt me with your cheap entertainment?

Let's use this simple definition "to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something" for the word "understand." Now, using this definition, explain to me how you or anyone else "understands" god and why there are so many opposing "understandings" about god. Indeed, if I read your posts correctly, it is your contention that we cannot really understand god. Is that right? So how can you make dogmatic statements about what god does/doesn't do?

I don't fully understand how computers work, either, but I'm able to use one every day for many tasks. And I can make some dogmatic statements about computers that are completely true, as well! None of that is "talking through a hat." Why should a partial understanding of God be treated any differently?

Cobbles is right - it's up to god to communicate with us, not the other way around.

Now you are projecting. Who's talking through whose hat? You don't even acknowledge that God exists. How can you state what it's "up to God" to do, if God doesn't even exist???

his/her/its failure to do so and the fact that you and the billions of other "believers" are simply making up something that makes sense to you clearly indicates that no deity has in fact present himself/herself/itself to humanity - unless it suffers from multiple personality disorder which is possible.

This is wrong. On so many different levels.
First of all, you don't know that God has failed to do that (especially since you "believe" God doesn't exist in the first place! I don't see how you can hold a non-existent thing accountable for properties that non-existent thing can't have, due to its non-existence.
Second, you can't state with any certainty or authority that we're "making it up."
Third, our limited understanding in no way "proves" that God hasn't communicated with us. it only shows that we're limited in our understanding.

Care to pay attention to the thread? That was my cheap shot, thank you very much. Credit where due please.

Post #13:

You crack me up!

Perhaps you need to care to pay attention to the thread...

"Sacred language"? It was written in human words, right? Do you really think that a deity which, by definition is super-human, uses the actual name "god" or "Yahweh" or any other we use? Words are words. There is nothing "sacred" about them. That is superstitious nonsense.

"Sacred" doesn't mean "non-human" in this case. "Sacred" (Lat. sacer) means "set apart for special use." I don't think God uses human language. But we do. And some of that language is set apart for speaking to and about Deity. How we treat those words is, in effect, how we treat the thing described or communicated with. It's not superstitious nonsense, any more than hurling epithets at each other is superstitious nonsense.

And you get that "knowledge" from where?

Observation.

It would actually amaze me that "we" do "our best" to drown him.

I don't doubt that.

Believers tend not to do that.

How would you know what believers "tend to do?"

Why would they if they believed in God.

Several reasons. One may be that they are trying desperately to understand God, so they create "walls of words" in order to do that, not realizing that God may best be known in silence.
Another may be that they sense that they are not in control. They want to be, so they -- probably unconsciously -- "box God in" with language. Yet another may be what a lot of atheists do: They've been hurt by religion, so they fling hurtful words to try to beat back the hurt.

I guess YOU do not do your best either to drown him.

Actually, I do. And when I realize that, I do my best not to.

And most nonbelievers actually dont do it since they dont believe in it anyway.

Sure they do. Look what you're doing here! Take a look at most of the atheist posts here. All words. All emphatically denying God's existence. Walls built to shut out what they don't (or can't) believe.

Apart of that i find it rather strange to argue that GOD retreats into our brackground because of the noise of some tiny humans.
He wouldnt "force" himself onto humans if he showed up. He would actually just show his existence.

Two perspectives on this:
First, how do you know what God would look like? We are told that no one can look on God's face and live to tell about it. That sounds like "just showing up" is a pretty big imposition. Perhaps that's why God doesn't "just show up."
Second, God did "show up," but God did so as one of us -- Jesus. Many of us ignored him. Some of us believed that he was "God's Word made flesh." God spoke a Word. When that Word was silenced, the very rocks made noise, we're told, so awful was the silence. After three days, that Word came back, and told those who believed to "Go. Tell." The Word passed the word to us, and disappeared, giving us the responsibility of speaking. If God "showed up," wouldn't that constitute an interruption of those to whom God had entrusted words?

Sure i am a human. So what? How is that related to be being "at fault"?

Because the fault is a systemic, not a personal problem.

And you detect him how?

Intellect, imagination, intuition.

Supposedly they happened all day long in the old age. Strangely only now when we have science and could perhaps actually understand something about this universe ... only now he doesnt act or come forth.

Read above. Perhaps this is our time to speak -- not God's. The words we speak are reflective of the Word God spoke. We speak the Word again. And again. And every time we bear witness to that Word, God comes among us again, doing the things God has always done. That's why what we say is important. That's why we've lost sight of God -- because we've lost sight that our words are merely reflections of the Word.

 

[Dunemeister]

Intellect, imagination, intuition.

I know you don't mean to, but you make it seem that it's your superior intellect, etc., that enables you to see God as opposed to the lack of intellect of the atheist or whatever. You might wish to add "revelation" to your list.

 

[sojourner]

I know you don't mean to, but you make it seem that it's your superior intellect, etc., that enables you to see God as opposed to the lack of intellect of the atheist or whatever. You might wish to add "revelation" to your list.

Quite! You're right. Intellect is one way that God is perceived, whether the IQ is high, low or in between. It does not take superior intellect to perceive God.

And revelation comes to us through these things. Revelation is not a human tool of perception. I think that any perception of God is revelationary and not evidentiary.

 

[Cobblestones]

It does not take superior intellect to perceive God.

Apparently it doesn't take any as you so aptly have demonstrated.

 

[Dunemeister]

Apparently it doesn't take any as you so aptly have demonstrated.

Funny thing is, you actually think this is an insult. But think of this. There are mentally retarded people who have more accurate and robust access to God than you do, apparently.

 

[sojourner]

Apparently it doesn't take any as you so aptly have demonstrated.

::Cheap shot falls embarrassingly flat here:::faint:

 

[Cobblestones]

Funny thing is, you actually think this is an insult. But think of this. There are mentally retarded people who have more accurate and robust access to God than you do, apparently.

How you can possibly know that is astounding. And if it's a choice between intellect and retardation, I'll choose the former. It's all too easy to manipulate and abuse incompetents.

 

[Cobblestones]

::Cheap shot falls embarrassingly flat here:::faint:

Well, then

 

[slave2six]

Quite! You're right. Intellect is one way that God is perceived, whether the IQ is high, low or in between.

Just out of curiosity - are you a professional Christian (e.g. priest, pastor, etc)?

 

[sojourner]

Just out of curiosity - are you a professional Christian (e.g. priest, pastor, etc)?

"Professional Christian" is an oxymoron. Yes. I am clergy.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

do you know a place outside universe (earh and heavens)?

I don't "know". Do you ?

verily, the creater(-who does not needs any help from any one any thing-) of that universe is greater than it.

That doesn't answer the question nor does it explain anything.