Where is God?

[mohammed_beiruti]

I don't "know". Do you ?


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

the word "where" seems to indicate a place inside our universe, but creater is surrounding that universe , so the word "where" does not mean any thing!

if a ropot asked a man where is your battery?

the answer is there is no battary , and ropot does no understand human machanism

 

[sojourner]

That is, sir, the most ignorant statement I have read in months. Who knows a person better than that person's children? Who understands the Church (both the theoretical church and the actual church) better than those who have been indoctrinated in it their whole lives? Why do you think that Communists make it a priority to indoctrinate children from the earliest years of development? And if an adult raised under such circumstances was to somehow come and live in the Free world and get an objective view of Communism, would that person not be far more qualified to speak to its evils as well as its strengths?

There is an excellent book called "A Child of Hitler" that was written by a man who was indoctrinated in the Hitler Youth. He speaks of his life and his indoctrination and the transformation that he underwent after the war. This man traveled around the world with a woman who was a Jew who survived Auschwitz and together they explained in detail both sides of the story. Do you think that some historian would be better suited to explain what they underwent or that their testimony far outweighs some academic, forensic analysis of the psyche of the people who lived under the Nazi regime?

Don't flatter yourself that I am simply frustrated and angry and therefore what I say is somehow less true. Why shouldn't I be? You think the man raised under Communism or in the Nazi regime and then finds freedom and sanity is not angry at how he was abused and robbed of so many years of life under such intolerable doctrines? Of course I am angry. I have every reason and right to be. And he is a fool who thinks that one who has suffered injustice at the hands of a religious doctrine is less qualified to speak of what he knows than those who are the manipulators of such an evil system of control.

Because, in your anger and frustration you have equated the particular brand of teaching with other, healthier teachings. I'd be willing to bet that the brand of Xy you with which you were reared was unhealthy. Thing is, not all brands of Xy are unhealthy. Speak out all you want to about the evil system that ruined you. But do not speak ill of either clergy or systems that do not ruin people.

 

[sojourner]

Yes. Whether intentionally or not, anyone who perpetrates such an odious doctrine as Christianity is either a charlatan or at best an unthinking fool. Certainly there are many very nice people who are under this system but that does not make the doctrines any less wrong.

It's a strange thing about belief - otherwise rational people buying into and swearing to know that which cannot be known, as you phrased it, are all too common. And yet, the great thing about belief, especially a complex one, is that it is a playground for the truly intelligent which is why there is so diverse an opinion on doctrines and teachings. Once you accept the assumptions, there is no end to the nuances and metaphors for life - all of which are intellectually stimulating.

Once again, which doctrines?

 

[sojourner]

Loving God while you are selling Him is close to impossible.

This is a real good example. Healthy Xy does not engage in "selling God."

<This> is why all so-called evangelical/fundamentalist intellectual activity has such a hollow ring to it; it begins with its "answer" and then twists itself into knots trying to justify the conclusions.

A healthy system is not afraid of leaving things open-ended. We don't begin with an answer, but with a question. Sometimes, the question is left unanswered. That's OK.

I have yet to meet any professional Christian of any sect who did not operate from a position of "knowing" things that you don't know (whether because of some intellectual arrival at a conclusion or because of some "revelation" or "personal experience") and then look down their noses at you because they are "in the know" and poor you just simply can't understand.

Either you've met a very small demographic, or you've grossly misunderstood the paradigm.

Just who is?

The Alpha and Omega.

Seems to me that the Gospel-story Jesus had particularly scathing things to say against religious professionals in particular.

The object of Jesus' ire was the entitlement -- not the office.

Or perhaps you will simply dismiss those as the rantings of a frustrated and angry GK (God-Kid)...

Usually a mistake to identify with Jesus when hoping to understand gospel pericpae.

 

[Sola'lor]

Supposedly he has created the universe, supposedly he has sent prophets and messengers to us, supposedly he communicates every now and then with people and supposedly he does his works daily.

A legitimate question would be: where is (the abrahmitic?) god?

Abraham 3:9, 10
9 And thus there shall be the reckoning of the time of one planet above another, until thou come nigh unto Kolob, which Kolob is after the reckoning of the Lord’s time; which Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest.

10 And it is given unto thee to know the set time of all the stars that are set to give light, until thou come near unto the throne of God.


I don't know where that is though.

 

[Amill]

"Where is he?"
"He is here."
"Wha.. I can't see him."
"That doesn't mean cuz you can't see him that he's not here."
"It doesn't?...He's in the cupboard!"
"No he's not in the cupboard! God doesn't go into cupboards!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxo81Ok9Urk

 

[slave2six]

Speak out all you want to about the evil system that ruined you. But do not speak ill of either clergy or systems that do not ruin people.

So, if a believing a lie makes someone a better person then it is unassailable? Or if a system keeps people from thinking for themselves and yet those people are well-behaved then the system is good? I don't understand what you mean by "ruined." To me, the word applies to any system that is based on sub-human concepts of forgiveness and mercy or that begin with telling people that they are inherently bad or that they are sinful or whatever. It's all bosh! Making people feel guilty all the time is not healthy.

And don't give me any nonsense about this being a false idea. Every traditional service is centered on the Eucharist and full of "lord have mercy" cries. Every Protestant service has at its core the need for Christ because man in "fallen" and can't get up on his own. It's all lies and manipulation and control. How can such things fail to ruin a person?

 

[slave2six]

This is a real good example. Healthy Xy does not engage in "selling God."

Really? So you don't pass a plate or have a box in the foyer or ever ask people to give you money? You don't tell people that they need to tithe? You must be in one of the only churches in the world that doesn't. And even if you don't how do you not "sell god"? If you must first weave a story that ends in "you need a saviour" (this being your product) then what the heck do you do? Do you only teach the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount? If so, those are not what separates Xy from other religions, is it? And that is certainly not how the rest of Christendom operates.

A healthy system is not afraid of leaving things open-ended. We don't begin with an answer, but with a question. Sometimes, the question is left unanswered. That's OK.

Of course! Every good marketing campaign begins with a question and then provides the answer - and even the "unanswered" question is typically rhetorical. I'd be interested to know what kinds of unanswered questions you ask too. Seriously, give us some examples of the kinds of things that you teach people.

 

[sojourner]

So, if a believing a lie makes someone a better person then it is unassailable?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

if a system keeps people from thinking for themselves and yet those people are well-behaved then the system is good?

I'm not talking about the systems that keep people from thinking for themselves. There are many churches whose foundation is based upon people questioning as they make their journeys of faith.

I don't understand what you mean by "ruined."

In part, betrayed to the point that cynicism unbalances any hope of making fair assessments.

To me, the word applies to any system that is based on sub-human concepts of forgiveness and mercy

See? I think most everyone would agree that forgiveness and mercy are not sub-human concepts, but rather traits of higher being.

or that begin with telling people that they are inherently bad

A good system celebrates the goodness in which humanity was created.

or that they are sinful or whatever.

Being pulled up short by reality is also a good thing.

Making people feel guilty all the time is not healthy.

There's a big difference between guilt and shame. Guilt can be a very constructive emotion, because it causes us to pull up short and make positive changes. Shame (internalized guilt) is never healthy. So, "feeling guilty all the time" is probably better described as "shaming people." And that isn't healthy. Happily, there are systems where this doesn't happen.

Every traditional service is centered on the Eucharist and full of "lord have mercy" cries.

There's a difference between the Eucharist and the Kyrie. The Kyrie is said at the time of confession, after which is a proclamation of forgiveness (you must have missed that part).

The Eucharist takes place as a completely different service (in the traditional model you describe above). Kyrie is located within the Service of the Word. Eucharist is central in the Service of Eucharist. The word eucharist means "to give thanks." So, Eucharist (the central act of traditional worship, is celebratory and an act of thanks. None of that has anything to do with "I'm a bad toad."

Every Protestant service has at its core the need for Christ because man in "fallen" and can't get up on his own.

Not every Protestant service. Some do emphasize that. Others emphasize the work of salvation, in which humanity has been reconciled to God, and now abides in a different state of being.

It's all lies and manipulation and control.

Some of it is. Some of it isn't. As I said, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

How can such things fail to ruin a person?

Only by the grace of God. Again, happily, "such things" are not universal within Xy.

 

[sojourner]

Really? So you don't pass a plate or have a box in the foyer or ever ask people to give you money? You don't tell people that they need to tithe?

Contribution of monetary funds does not buy one anything.

And even if you don't how do you not "sell god"?

Hmm. No advertising involved. No goods or services in exchange for money or return services. Just shared ministry.

If you must first weave a story that ends in "you need a saviour"

We mustn't "first" do that. The story doesn't end with building a need and a sense of urgency in the customer. The story ends with "there is no need that God has not already taken care of."

then what the heck do you do?

Offer people a way to connect with God and with others in ways that are meaningful for them.

Do you only teach the Golden Rule and the Sermon on the Mount? If so, those are not what separates Xy from other religions, is it?

What separates Xy from other religions is the reconciliation that has been effected through the Christ Event.

Of course! Every good marketing campaign begins with a question and then provides the answer - and even the "unanswered" question is typically rhetorical. I'd be interested to know what kinds of unanswered questions you ask too. Seriously, give us some examples of the kinds of things that you teach people.

You assume that evangelism always takes the form of "advertsing and marketing." It does not. Our "brand" (to borrow from the sales metaphor) of evangelism is to act toward others in loving ways. We teach that all are loved, that all are equal, that all are worthy human beings, because that's how God created us, and that's the state to which God has reconciled us.
We don't ask questions institutionally. Questions come to the surface as one travels one's spiritual journey. Those questions stretch and challenge faith. Many times those questions are not answered, except with more questions. Our job is not to answer questions, but to provide a safe place for questioning to take place.

 

[MountainHumanist]

It has backing evidence: The shared experiences of people over thousands of years. I can't help it if you won't accept it. Luckily for us, you're not the last word on what constitutes spiritual evidence.

If "he shared experiences of people over thousands of years" is a standard for determining truth than that means Buddhism, Hindusim, pantheism, ancestor worship and other ancient practices be considered as valid as Christianity. It also means that Britney Spears and Reality TV must be of the highest cultural value since millions love them.

 

[slave2six]

To me, the word applies to any system that is based on sub-human concepts of forgiveness and mercy

See? I think most everyone would agree that forgiveness and mercy are not sub-human concepts, but rather traits of higher being.

What makes the Christian concepts of forgiveness and mercy sub-human is the Cross. Humans are able to forgive and even to reconcile with one another without any bloodshed, much less a human sacrifice, involved. And let's look at what you have to say about XY:

A good system celebrates the goodness in which humanity was created.

So, if we are created in goodness then there is no need for reconciliation/atonement/forgiveness/etc. And yet you say:

the Kyrie is said at the time of confession, after which is a proclamation of forgiveness

Others emphasize the work of salvation, in which humanity has been reconciled to God

The story ends with "there is no need that God has not already taken care of."

What separates Xy from other religions is the reconciliation that has been effected through the Christ Event.

How can you proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and not proclaim first that there is an offense against God that needs forgiveness and a separation from God that requires reconciliation? And, again, how was that reconciliation made possible? Did God say, "That's OK kid, I know you're weak and frail and you're bound to screw up. I'll overlook your transgressions" or did he set up systems of sacrifice (OT) and the ultimate sacrifice of a perfect human being (NT) and then offer reconciliation only to those who "believe on his name" while excluding everyone else who doesn't? The latter is cruel and sub-human. The former is what any unassailable mature person would do. If God is wounded because of our transgressions then he's petty. If he isn't there is no need to add suffering to all the suffering that we already experience, is there?

But, more to the point, it isn't even God offering forgiveness and whatnot but rather men in funny hats who claim there is this mystical being who is willing to forgive people for something that people have done to offend this mystical/invisible person without even knowing it!

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

the word "where" seems to indicate a place inside our universe, but creater is surrounding that universe , so the word "where" does not mean any thing!

if a ropot asked a man where is your battery?

the answer is there is no battary , and ropot does no understand human machanism

I do not mean his "place of living".

I mean any indication of his existence including his acts.

God however seems absent. Not only as a being but also as an actor.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

ThereIsNoSpoon,
The Bible itself answers this very question, Ps 115:2,3. These two verses are asking from the nations point of view; Where is the Jew's God? They answer that their God is in the heavens.

And you never pondered the question how it comes that he doesnt act or appear here every now and then? Afterall he supposedly did that rather often in former times.

Consider what Rom 1:18-20, says about God being the creator of all the things we see, and that there is NO EXCUSE for not knowing that God created these things.

Why would there not be an "excuse" for not knowing this? Afterall it doesnt follow logically nor is there ay real evidence.

There are son many thing God has done to make life on earth pleasurable.

And none to make life a pain?

 

[Cobblestones]

And you never pondered the question how it comes that he doesnt act or appear here every now and then? Afterall he supposedly did that rather often in former times.

Well, considering the current population vs. that of ancient times perhaps god is overwhelmed...

 

[blueman]

In a vast universe like ours? Entirely plausible and in fact likely.

How plausible is it and what are the odds to support the notion of a god who could create all this stuff but is completely incapable of communicating with people that he has created?

That's a dangerous assumption that you're making that God does not conmmunicate with His creation. God has communicated to us in many ways throughout history and does so today through the Word of God (Jesus Christ). He speaks to our spirit-man through the pysche (mind, will and emotions) that He created within us. There are a lot of people in denial and as a result, surpress the truth that is given to us through the Holy Spirit. As a result, we do live a meaningless, purposeless life as a random, evolutionary origin would imply.

 

[sojourner]

If "he shared experiences of people over thousands of years" is a standard for determining truth than that means Buddhism, Hindusim, pantheism, ancestor worship and other ancient practices be considered as valid as Christianity. It also means that Britney Spears and Reality TV must be of the highest cultural value since millions love them.

Buddhism, Hinduism, pantheism, ancestor worship are valid! I never said they weren't.

I suppose you'd have to define "cultural value" to determine if your statement is true. If millions of people are entertained by them (and if that's the definition we choose) then I'd have to say you're right. If millions of people are entertained by them (but we choose, instead, the lifting of societal standards as our definition) then I'd have to say you're wrong.

The shared experiences of many people point to evidence that there is some awareness of Divinity within humanity. Just what that constitutes, we cannot say, so we have to develop systems of belief about Divinity that "make sense" to us. The systems invariably fall short, but they're the best we've got.

 

[sojourner]

What makes the Christian concepts of forgiveness and mercy sub-human is the Cross. Humans are able to forgive and even to reconcile with one another without any bloodshed, much less a human sacrifice, involved.

The notion of "substitutionary atonement" is not a universal Christian concept.

How can you proclaim forgiveness and reconciliation and not proclaim first that there is an offense against God that needs forgiveness and a separation from God that requires reconciliation? And, again, how was that reconciliation made possible? Did God say, "That's OK kid, I know you're weak and frail and you're bound to screw up. I'll overlook your transgressions" or did he set up systems of sacrifice (OT) and the ultimate sacrifice of a perfect human being (NT) and then offer reconciliation only to those who "believe on his name" while excluding everyone else who doesn't? The latter is cruel and sub-human. The former is what any unassailable mature person would do. If God is wounded because of our transgressions then he's petty. If he isn't there is no need to add suffering to all the suffering that we already experience, is there?

You're assuming "substitutionary atonement." It's throwing you off. You're also confusing reconciliation for our propensity to sin with our acknowledgment of sin and our need to confess and ask forgiveness to aid in our process of healing. Forgiveness is a human process. Reconciliation is a Divine event.

But, more to the point, it isn't even God offering forgiveness and whatnot but rather men in funny hats who claim there is this mystical being who is willing to forgive people for something that people have done to offend this mystical/invisible person without even knowing it!

Moot point. The Christian system assumes the existence of God, and the authority of the Church to act on God's behalf.

 

[Bware]

That's a good question. Where is God? We believe God is here, yet God is also deafeningly silent most of the time. Perhaps the fault lies, not with God, but with us, and our uncanny ability to diminish God with our language. Since God will not be diminished, God has to stand outside our ability to verbalize and understand.

Another way of saying this would be "you have to use your imagination"

 

[Bware]

Part of the understanding we have of God is that God does not force God's Self upon us. God has acted -- we must respond. If we don't respond, in what way does that make God ineffective?

Right god doesn't have to force himself because in "The Word" Christians are instructed to shout from the highest mountain. They cram it down our throats for him. I mean why do work if others can do it for you..:sarcastic