Omniprescence

[megasamurai]

I have been wondering about the doctrine of omnipresence. The Bible never says that he is everywhere without exception, but many verses show that he is in a lot of places. It is obvious that god has the ability to be everywhere according to the Bible but can actually be away from people. Some Christians have insisted that separation from god is the penalty people will face in the afterlife, but some Bible verses indicate that it is possible to be separated from god right now on this earth. How did Cain separate himself from god if he is omnipresent? How do we separate ourselves from god? If sin is separation from god and god is love and joy, how are sinners able to feel love without god? If separation from god is both what happens when we sin and the penalty in the afterlife, how is this so bad if it's just like being on earth? My church taught that sin did not separate ourselves from god literally because of his omnipresence, we just lost his blessing. Literal separation from god did not happen until the afterlife. The Bible is contradictory about this. Some verses say, "Depart from me,"" implying separation in the afterlife, but is this separation from his presence or just his physical body? One famous verse in Revelation states that sinners will be tormented in the presence of the lord. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 has an ambiguous statement in the King James:

 

Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 

 

Is the presence of the lord causing the destruction, or are people's ability to be in the presence of the lord destroyed? Biblehub's translations almost unanimously go with the latter interpretation, while one translation goes with the former,  http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/1-9.htm. How can BibleHub not comment on the contradictory interpretation of the Jubilee Bible 2000 interpretation compared to the others.

 

My main point is that the doctrine of omnipresence is messy as can be as well as what is "separation from god" and what are its effects. If god is love, why are sinners who are separated from god by sin able to feel love? Is this proof that the only time when separation from god is literal is in the afterlife? Of course, separation from the Christian god can only happen if there is a Christian god. Since there's reason  to doubt that, what did the authors think about his omnipresence and the meaning of the term "separation from god"?  Christian interpretation seems to vary quite widely between separation being literal or metaphorical. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

9 minutes ago, megasamurai said:

the doctrine of omnipresence is messy as can be

 

An omnipresent god would be in every pile of shit in every barnyard. Messy indeed.

 

[megasamurai]

No one talks about that issue. When you urinate, are you peeing on god because he's omnipresent? Why is it beneficial for him to be omnipresent? People make a big deal out of this doctrine, but I don't quite understand why. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

I think it comes from the idea that god is supposed to know everything. How can he know what happens everywhere if he isn't everywhere? 

 

Of course, that would make god the all-time biggest consumer of porn. He's been there watching every sex act and every shower and every skinny dip and every porn viewing that has ever taken place. I guess that should be no surprise; religion does have god being quite preoccupied with sex.

 

Sadly, that would also mean that he's been there watching every single rape and abuse that has ever happened. He watches without lifting a finger to help the victims. 

 

[mwc]

     I don't know if Jews really believe in an omnipresent god.  They don't seem to in antiquity and I'm not sure things have really changed too much since then.  Maybe some do but it's probably Kabbalah or something since they tend towards that sort of thing.  I'm saying that since the whole idea of an omnipresent god probably doesn't come from the Jews and it's not so much in the OT.  Xians likely got it from somewhere else like they did a lot of things (probably not Greco-Roman either since those gods weren't omnipresent either) or just developed the idea over time (there's probably some other options here too that I'm not thinking of right now).

 

      I would imagine the reason for it may vary depending on why it started in the first place.  For example, it's that time of year, so consider Santa Claus.  He knows when you're sleeping and all that.  He watches the little girls and boys to see who is good and bad to determine who gets on what list.  If god has to know this as well then he might need similar omnipresence to help him out.  I know he supposedly has omniscience but maybe he didn't have that first or some sects gave him some powers while others didn't or omniscience meant something difference to them than it does to us now?  For that matter maybe omnipresence originally meant something different?  I'm speculating here.

 

     We're now left with the concept of a god that is eternal.  Not bound by a universe.  Doesn't exist as something physical but can choose to interact with physical things.  These are simply its very nature.  At the same time it can choose to not exist in a place, against its nature, simply because part of its nature is that it can will to do things.  So whatever.

 

          mwc

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

The usual take in classical theism is that God is utterly transcendent. So His essence is not "in" any created thing. God is present "in" the world through His operations, not in His essence, otherwise the world and things in it would be divine. God as Unmoved Mover moves the cow through a chain of causes to excrete the shit in Citsonga's example, but that's an operation of God, not an instance of His essence being in the shit. 

 

 Some religions of course are pantheistic, but they are of the devil. /s

 

 

[megasamurai]

My church taught omnipresence as literal, as in being in the poop. I don't see the point of literal omnipresence and it has gross implications. Omniscience is possible without omnipresence. An omniscient god can know if your fapping without seeing you fap. Still it's surprising that this "literal" omnipresence is not in hell and any mentions of people being "separated from god" while living are all figurative.Where's the evidence that separation is figurative on this earth and literal in the afterlife? How does an Oklahoma Assembly of God church know that the reverse isn't true?

[sdelsolray]

2 hours ago, megasamurai said:

...

Where's the evidence that separation is figurative on this earth and literal in the afterlife?

...

 

There is no evidence, just religious dogma and related bald claims.

 

...

How does an Oklahoma Assembly of God church know that the reverse isn't true?

 

They don't.  They just pretend to know.

[★ Citsonga ★]

7 hours ago, ficino said:

God as Unmoved Mover moves the cow through a chain of causes to excrete the shit in Citsonga's example, but that's an operation of God, not an instance of His essence being in the shit. 

 

I was being facetious with that, of course. As a believer I never pictured god as being in a pile of shit. I did think of him as ever present all around, though, which does create the problem I mentioned later on about god seeing all rapes and abuse and not doing anything. 

 

[♦ ficino ♦]

13 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

I was being facetious with that, of course. As a believer I never pictured god as being in a pile of shit. I did think of him as ever present all around, though, which does create the problem I mentioned later on about god seeing all rapes and abuse and not doing anything. 

 

God doesn't just see them. God is the First Cause of them! Even though supposedly, as evils, their causes are accidental ... they go back to the First Cause however the theist slices it. But that is not a problem for the doctrine of God's Goodness because reasons.

[megasamurai]

I thought that god doesn't stop rapes because of free will. He's like the Watcher in Marvel Comics. He watches but doesn't intervene. 

[★ Citsonga ★]

5 hours ago, megasamurai said:

I thought that god doesn't stop rapes because of free will. He's like the Watcher in Marvel Comics. He watches but doesn't intervene. 

 

That's what a lot of Christians say in an attempt to get god off the hook, but it still amounts to heartlessness. If any of us watched something like that and had the ability to stop it but didn't, then they wouldn't let us off the hook.

 

Perhaps the real reason he doesn't intervene is because he's simply not there.

 

[Margee]

On 12/20/2017 at 10:06 AM, ficino said:

The usual take in classical theism is that God is utterly transcendent. So His essence is not "in" any created thing. God is present "in" the world through His operations, not in His essence, otherwise the world and things in it would be divine. God as Unmoved Mover moves the cow through a chain of causes to excrete the shit in Citsonga's example, but that's an operation of God, not an instance of His essence being in the shit. 

 

 Some religions of course are pantheistic, but they are of the devil. /s

 

 

3

I'm going to repeat what you just said ficino because it will show us all how the different christians teach and think. I was just giggling to myself as I read yours because we were told something else. 

 

So here goes: ''The usual take in classical theism is that God is utterly transcendent. So His essence is in every created human. God is present "in" the world through His Holy Spirit which lives inside the human body, therefore every human is divine because of his inner presence.''

 

And this is the teaching I got about an omnipresent god. The omnipresent god was ''The Holy Spirit'' which now lived in the human body that was 'saved'....therefore he was omnipresent because he lived in everyone in the whole world.

 

Even the starving children........

[sdelsolray]

Woo woo comes in many flavors.

[megasamurai]

Yes, I'm curious as to what belief is more common, total omnipresence or omnipresence everywhere except hell (or possibly him not being completely omnipresent on this earth. Maybe some churches take the Old Testament verses of characters leaving god's presence literally.)  What did all of you get drilled into your head?

[mwc]

On 12/20/2017 at 6:06 AM, ficino said:

The usual take in classical theism is that God is utterly transcendent. So His essence is not "in" any created thing. God is present "in" the world through His operations, not in His essence, otherwise the world and things in it would be divine. God as Unmoved Mover moves the cow through a chain of causes to excrete the shit in Citsonga's example, but that's an operation of God, not an instance of His essence being in the shit. 

 

 Some religions of course are pantheistic, but they are of the devil. /s

 

 

     I recall reading this some time ago.  It seems very Newtonian.

 

          mwc

[♦ ficino ♦]

Yes, there are lots of flavors of Christianity - and Judaism and Islam.

 

The view that I ascribed to "classical theism" is not the one that is commonly found in Protestantism except maybe Calvinists - though I could be wrong, maybe some Anglicans, too. Catholics talk all the time about God dwelling within us (think the eucharist!) since such language is in the Bible. But that's not the same as saying God's essence exists in a created thing. A created thing's essence is distinct from its existence, which must be conferred by God. God's essence is identical with His existence on the more scholastic view.

 

Catholic tradition then emphasizes that God is utterly transcendent, above creation, because created things participate in existence while God is His own existence. "... between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude" (Fourth Lateran Council). Cardinal Newman said that Protestants have a low view of God and Christ, so that they think of them as like humans, just bigger and stronger, rather than as really transcendent. Newman thought this attitude was partly a result of Protestants' abandoning the cult of Mary and the other saints. The feelings that Christians used to direct toward Mary, said Newman, Protestants wind up directing toward Christ because they are uncomfortable with the doctrine that Mary is the mother of GOD. So they have a view of Jesus as a buddy, which Newman said is wrong.

 

I think St. Gregory Palamas promoted the doctrine in Eastern Orthodoxy that God's operations or "energies" actually do contain God's essence or being. I can't bear to read about this.

 

Today William Lane Craig and others are accused by more traditional theists of being "theistic personalists," ie. that Craig et al think God is a super-person. The more traditional types counter that God has personal qualities but is not a member of the class, "person," because God is a member of no class. God is above all classes/sets/species/genera.

 

In "God Talk" lots of differences to spend time hashing over! So many denominations, so little time to pick the right one before I die.  /s

 

 

[megasamurai]

That is quite complicated. I was raised protestant under the belief that god was literally omnipresent, except for hell. All references of people leaving god's presence while alive were metaphorical. What is the Catholic opinion of verses referring to people leaving his presence? 

[Joshpantera]

They fumble fuck their ways through it, all of them. 

 

An infinite and eternal being is necessarily "all-present," if not "all-present," then we're talking about something less than infinite and eternal. So usually god is claimed to be omni-present, but the implications are glossed over or not sought after any further. 

 

All-present except for: 

- Hell

-Afterlife

-Rape

-Shit 

 

Which is then almost, but not quite infinite and eternal, and falls as something less than infinite and eternal in scope.

 

So which is it? Really omni-present or not really omni-present?

 

They loose something either way.

 

God is either everything that exists, therefore infinite, eternal, transcendent and immanent, "omni-present," or god is not. If so, then you and everything else IS god. If not, then god is not "omni-present."

 

They can't deal with the real implications either way. 

 

There's the problem with man made theological claims and concepts. And the general problems that arise from playing make believe with one another - trying to make things up as you go along and pay no attention to where the contradictions begin to arise....