There are no God’s own words, Just what humans said God said, the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, If such a God were everywhere then there would be no boundries. The Psalmist says" Even if I go into hell you are there", an implication that this particular God would have no boundries. The only thing that can be every where at the same time is what exists. Nothing can be outside of what ever exists.It would be non existent.
Monavis
Monavis, we’ve got your opinion of the meaning of the word “God” pretty clearly now. Respectfully, I ask your view of God. “Don’t know” is of course an allowed and repectable answer.
The whole of the bible—it’s words, thrust, context and continuity do not support an omnipresent God. A true understanding (and this is for a non-believer or believer!) cannot be had on a message board–nor can it be done by casually listening to “…the people that I know have been taught that their God was everywhere, …”
It is also quite easy—with both good intention and not----to quote scripture and have it mean anything you want it to mean. That breads the semi-nihilistic view that the bible is so contradictory and so open to varied intrepatations that is essentially unknowable. But it is uknowable only to the extent that biblical ignorance is pandmemic, and to the extent there is knowledge it is garnered is measures that guarantee intellectual and spiritua malnourishment. Why take up the arduous task of reading the bible when Asimov, Lewis and a gaggle of others—who sit like patrons on crowded CTA train—have done it already, and are waiting for you at Barnes & Noble?
The scrpiture you cited does not indicate that God is omnipresent. (for those intersted I believe the scrpiture that Monavis partially quoted was Ps 139:8.) Here is the whole chapter: (Amplified Bible)
Does this account support an omnipresent God? No! It is a song composed by a grieving David. The poetic language is unmistakable. He is simply saying that there is nowhere that David could go----heaven, hell, flying like a bird, in his mother’s womb—that God would be either “blind” to David, or “unaware” of David’s presence/plight/condition etc. It is a poem to his God. You quoted Ps 139:8. What do the preceding 7 verses say? Do they support an omnipresent God? (The Mesage Bible)
The 139th Psalm shows that God’s knowledge and awareness are omnipresent. (as the 7 verses above show) It does not say----unless you impute meaning that the author didn’t say----that God Himself is omnipresent----just simply that He is all-knowing, all-searching, all-aware, and all-powerful. This chapter, taken in context with the other Psalms locally, and the whole of the bible globally, does not support an omnipresent God.
Many people have notions of God (like perhaps the people who you talked to) that God is “everywhere”, or “in our hearts”, or in nature etc. they’re often intricate and compelling. But they do not have a biblical basis.
You obviously have given great consideration to your philosophy. Who am I to say it’s wrong? What I am saying, however, is if the foundation of that philosophy is an understanding of the nature of the Judeo-Christian God, spoken of in the bible, your knowledge is flawed. And so, the conclusions drawn from that are equally flawed.
The bible does not indicate an omnipresent God.
I do not consider the Bible as an indicator of the Nature of God, if God is a being and in Existence one can only guess at His nature.
My point is that there are many ways to think of what the ‘word’ God means.The translation of the Bible I used, Psalm 138 verse 7 is" Whither shall I go from thy spirit? If I ascend into Heaven, thou art there: If I decend into Hell thou art present."This suggests that God is everywhere.
The many ways to translate the Bible has been the reason for many different belief systems.
Monavis
Frankly, this is an anemic response.
To begin with, why quote the bible when you do not consider it a valid ‘indicator?’
And then you re-quote the 139th Psalm completely out of context. :smack:
There are indeed many belief systems. Many of them, while good intentioned, are borne of ignorance and the scantiness of knowledge.
If your philosophy has the bible as it’s foundation, I would encourage you to read it for yourself. I am certain you will find that your logic is flawed and the bible does not support an omnipresent god.
If it doesn’t, I would encourage you to stop you to stop quoting it. Why quote something you don’t understand, and don’t believe anyway?
The quotes I gave you came right from the Bible I had in front of me. If I would take the whole Bible as it is written there would be so much conflict one could translate what ever one wanted it to be. You are using a different Bible so the translation is different. I am using an old translation which was taught for years.
I understand quite well; I do not use the Bible for my personal beliefs, but the translation of the one I have, is the one I use. I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life time, I used to read it every day, that is why I quit believing it was the word of A God. I then studied history, archeology,and various religions. The word God to me doesn’t mean a supernatural being, creator, or heavenly Father. I respect the right of anyone to believe as they wish as long as they do not harm others.
My point is trying to understand the people who disagree with me. I am not trying to convert anyone. there are many religions that teach that God is everywhere. I believe the Catholic church teaches that. Catholics and other people that I know who use the Bible also believe that God is everywhere.
The nature of God is what ever people believe it to be.
Monavis
monavis said:
Nonsense. Using the translation you cited (which incidentally you didn’t cite!) you still misquoted it! Most bibles do a fairly good job of rendering the author’s words. The ones I cited were common versions, and they do not differ from the one you quoted and did not cite.
Baloney. I don’t believe you for one second. The average adult reads at about 175 words/min. If you read for 20 minutes a day (3-5 chapters), every single day of the year, it would take you a year to read the bible cover to cover. This is the 4th or 5th time I have had someone tell me that they’ve read the bible cover to cover numerous times. When challenged, in every single instance, they’ve come back with silly qualifiers; “It was casual”, “Many years ago,”“When I was a child”, and one of my favorites, “Yea but I was a speed reader…”
24 times? Is there a bridge you wish me to buy? :smack:
Whatever “many religions teach” , if they are of the Judeo-Christian flavor I would imagine they would be able to show this conclusively from their bible—no matter which translation.
Given that you have read it 24 times through (which at 20 minutes a day, would take you 24 years) you are perhaps the most knowledegable person the SDMB has ever seen as far as the bible is concerned. Choose any translation you wish. We’ll stick with that translation. Show me from the bible, that God is everywhere. Show me.
Correction
There is roughly 800,000 words in the bible, depending which bible you read. At 175 words/min it would take about 17-20 minutes per day, 5 days a week, to read the bible in a year. (not every single day)
If a person read every single day, it would require 12-15 minutes per day to read the bible in a year.
Of course, the bible isn’t the easiest reading material—particularly if the person chooses the** KJV.** If a person wishes to read with a high degree of comprehension, it is likely that some passages may require more time and effort, and thereby reduce the rate in which someone can read.
Don’t call Monavis a liar, dog. This is unacceptable rudeness, as well as unsupported wild speculation. Monavis is over 70 years old, which makes your demonstration of the unlikelihood of reading the bible 24 times rather weak. Apologise.
On this we must differ. Believing doesn’t make it so.
I did not call him a liar. I told him I did not believe him. That is not semantics. It may be rather direct, but it is respectful to him.
We are in GD—it is expected that ideas and opinions will clash.
It is simply not the time that it would require to read the bible 24 times cover to cover that had me dubious. I have read many of Monavis’s posts, and in my experience a person with those credentials would have utilized this knowledge to offer more substantive posts.
His posting as to the bible’s contents seem to belie the substantial knowledge that reading the bible 24 times—cover to cover—would have afforded him.
It’s worth noting that his age has little to do with it. Certainly someone 70+ has had more time to read. But it is the substance of his posts that will earn him credibility on the subject at hand, not his age.
I have no doubt of the knowledge gained by bible reading when I read FriarTed’s or Polycarp’s posts. But I do not see that level of knowledge in Monavis’s posts at all. (or anything close to it)
You may be upset, but Monavis posted his credentials. it should not surprise him or you if they are challenged.
I will say this though: I apologize to Monavis, and to you if you were offended. It is not my intent to offend.
But I will reiterate that I did not call him a liar; and, I do not believe he’s read the bible 24 times.
This is precisely the sort of comment that makes GD so unbearable at times.
You are saying that he’s lying. How is that not calling him a liar?
I find GD unbearable at times too, for different reasons; not the least of which is the learned bible students and scholars who are either unable, or unwilling to use the bible in a discussion that *involves the bible. *
I have aplogized to Monavis, as it was not my intent to offend him. (Nor is it my intent to coddle him here)
But I am not playing some verbal sleight of hand. To answer your question; for me to know he was lying it would require me to know what he was thinking; to know he intended to make a statement he knew was untrue.
I don’t know that. Is he a liar? I don’t know, and within the context of our discussion I don’t care.
Perhaps his version of " I have read the Bible through at least 24 times in my life time,…" (his exact words) differs from mine. Maybe he did in a most casual way. Maybe he essentially skimmed it. Maybe it was within the context of many years of sitting in front of his priest/pastor in a religious services setting. Maybe it was listening to years of live, recorded, or television sermons. Maybe he is mistaken. (hard as they may seem to be)* Maybe*…he’s lying.
I don’t know. And while I have been direct at times, I do not have a history of calling people names, ever.
Monavis ventured here on his own. He posted a partial scripture, that in my view was horribly out of context—both within the immediate scrpitures that surrounded it—and within the context of the bible as a whole. He didn’t even cite the scripture! I posted not just the scripture, but the whole chapter, and offered it’s complete context.
When I pressed him, he offered his credentials, and it would appear they were offered in lieu if a more substantive response. Given the nature and substance of his posts on the topic I am left unconvinced.
I would like to point out something that, to me at least, is significant.
People’s impressions are made here. People are educated here. SDMB’s motto, which I presume is not entirely tongue in cheek, seeks to reduce ignorance.
I have also seen may comments here—many of them----where people have lavished praise on this place for the knowledge here and what they’ve learned here.
Credentials are a way of establishing credibilty, especially since we are mostly strangers. If QtM (who I believe is a doctor) makes a statement about medical issues, I believe there would be a tendency to take him at his word. Similarly, I believe Bricker is an attorney. (I might be wrong…) I would certainly see his opinion on legal matters as being credible. (while not offering either man blind credulity)
Monavis has been critical of the bible, and has offered his insights as to what the bible has to say about the nature of God. That’s cool. And, he has offered the us that he has read the bible 24 times. To me, that should offer him some up-front credibilty—particularly to those wholly unacquainted with the bible.
I am not a bible scholar. I haven’t read it 24 times, cover to cover, and I’ve never met anyone who has. I am a bible student. (albeit a serious student) But I would be equally dubious of QtM’s credentials if he offered the type of medical advice here as the type Monavis offers on the topic of the bible.
You do not have to believe that I read the Bible that many times but I have people who can prove I did, (The book is read to pieces)I am Far more than 25 years of age,I read many
books a year. The Bible I cite is a Catholic Bible I am not sure of the spelling but it is a Duay Version that was given to me in the 50’s by a friend. If there is new translations perhaps they are better, but her church used this translation for before the Reformation. The Catholic Church (as she stated) uses the 138th Psalm to mean God is every where. Part of their religious teaching is ,“Where is God? God is everywhere” If what you believe God to be he is not a very big God and is a part of Existence as you and I are. By the way, I read far more than 20 minuets per day,I can read a novel in a day. When I was a freshman in high school I read 250 books. I still read a book a week. If I do not put it down I can read it in several hours.
Monavis
I thank Rain dog for the defense of me,I am a she, not a he.
I do not feel offended by comments made by anyone differing from me. I learn from many people. I do not think less of them for not accepting my beliefs.
I do not believe the Bible is the Word Of a God,but there is a lot of good to learn from it. there were many learned people in Biblical times and before that, and many of their ideas are good ones.
If some one translates a word or passage, different than I do, I believe it is their right. I do not think they are stupid or lying.
Monavis
Well…as I said, I apologize if I offended you, and I apologize for getting your gender wrong. :o
I accept your apology,but I do not think I need one from you. I was not offended. I know what I know and believe what I believe, What some one thinks of me does not diminish me, nor does their praise make me better; I am just what I am. You had no way to know my gender.
I do not claim to be an authority on any thing,except maybe cooking.( even that there are people better than I on the subject).
Monavis
Good - knowledge and belief clearly distinguished. Contradicted, though by this . . .
Since one cannot prove God to be, then one only believes through faith, since no one can really know the nature of God, they go by what they believe is his nature. Some say one thing about God others another.
Monavis
Some say nothing.