Omnipresense, where is it?

Now we're getting somewhere.

Good point. In fact, I'm going put this stuff on top, since it's actually getting to the issue at hand.

I'll admit here, that one of the primary reasons for bringing this to task is that it doesn't make much logical sense. However, the idea that God is in every "place", for instance, He sees into every home, on earth, or is with every believer, I don't really object to. He probably is, and the Bible can easily be shown to at least be friendly to such a view, even if it never says much to the effect.

Again, I must stress, Omnipresence, I believe, is an extra biblical belief, actually one I think was chalked up because of us comparing Jehovah to false God's.

The Arab says "Allah is everywhere!" the Christian says "Oh yea, well well my God is everywhere and in everything, even within Himself!". The Arab blinks a few times, trying to understand what was just said by the now satisfied looking Christian.

And again, I'll stress, it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. But however, when questioning a doctrine, it's perfectly alright to demand to be shown it's support, and if none can be show, to call it out and say it needs to be dropped.

Say I go back to debate with that Jehovah's witness again. Do I really need to show him people praying to God without using the name Jehovah, or am I perfectly justified, dispite how much older his belief is than me, in simply having him show me where the proof is that God cares what name we use when talking about Him?

Jokingly, but to the point, what if it were a long held majority belief that God hated cats. Would it be better to prove that He doesn't, or make others search for proof that He does? I could spend all day trying to prove there is no scripture on this issue, or I could spend a few minutes saying "really, show me" and handing over a Bible.

I don't really disagree with you, I don't think. But I'll look at you're passages anyway. I feel obligated since this is my thread and this is the first time in about a hundred posts someone has understood my SIMPLE challenge to a SIMPLE doctrine.

First let me outline the views of Omnipresence and their Biblical support as I know them:

Full doppler effect omnipresence meaning God is literally everywhere, in everything on every scale and even exists within Himself in an existence format the human mind can't possibly understand.
Biblically: no support
Doctrinally: this is the most popular view amongst rigid believers, however most never define omnipresence to this degree.

Omnipresence that God is simply every place on earth.
Biblically: good support, it never really says much to this effect, but the idea is there
Doctrinally: a popular view with secular semi believers, new Christians, young Christians and evangilists

Omnipresence that God is simply where He needs to be.
Biblically: Great support
Doctrinally: often the view shared by those whom don't like the first two.

Omnipresence that God is where He needs to be, and with every believer.
Biblically: near rock solid proof
Doctrinally: No Christian objects to this view, they just feel the need to tack more on for some reason.

God is a singularity, only existing in one place at a time, just like a man.
Biblically: no real support, best that can be pointed out is that most "proof" of omnipresence is through indirect references, however, the Bible does seem pretty clear to at leat imply that God can be in more than one place at a time.
Doctrinally: Appearenly, Jehovah's Witnesses.


To the Bible verses:

Proverbs 15:3
In context, this is part in a series of stand alone Proverbs, actually most likely expressive as to the existence of God, also, the reference is indirect. This passage show no support for full omnipotence, however, indirect for "every place" omnipotence.

Colossians 1:16-17
In context, the whole chapter, this is part of the first greetings of Paul to the Church in Colosse. Again, this is a single verse proof and actually more indirect than the first. Actually, sorry but I don't see how it applies. The last sentence can be construed to mean, He is everywhere, but most easily means God is greater than all things and all things are dependant on Him.

Hebrews 1:3
The context seems to be chapter one, but the book of Hebrews has one passage lead to another it seems so one could argue longer. In this chapter, Jesus' superiority to angles is the subject. The section this is from, it seems verses 1-4, has little to do with the subject we're discussing. Actually I'm sorry, but again, I don't see the relivence. The first part of this verse seems to be in reference to the rest of the chapter, that Jesus has the same power as God, and that all things depend on him.





_______________________________________________________________________________

Circular reasoning doesn't hold much clout for me.

I explained some of my aggressivness even in your quotes. Also, yes, when someone clearly missquotes and disrespects scripture, I do get upset. Would it really have taken so much to read a few more verses and see that the presented verse, Matthew 10:30 is irrelivent?

Next there are three nonsense responses. Whatever.

 

God is omnipresent, one must be omnipresent to be God, there for God is omnipresent and omnipresence is not a false doctrine. Sounds like reasoning in a circle to me.

Is it now? I still see NO proof of that WHAT SO EVER.



As to my statement that God exists within Himself, this is an enevitable conclusion. You see, if God exists in each grain of sand, and exists whole over the whole beach, then enevitably He exists within Himself. I'm speaking literally not mystically. Yes, I know I'm not suppose to actually think about and draw conclusions about the "foundational doctrines" like that, but I can't help it.

Maybe it's my curiosity, my desire to know what went wrong all those centuries ago, or whenever it was, that the church fragmented. As we continue to separate, we all become weaker, fighting more amongst ourselves than preaching to the world.

The easiest solution to this is to just say "lets all stop fighting". That's also the most unrealistic. The problem is not that we're fighting. The majority of us are wrong, and the question is who is right. Indeed, the futher someone strays from the truth, the more urgent that he be steered back. So imagine how I feel. It seems to me, I can't even find one denomination that even STUDIES the Bible with the respect it deserves, let alone, enevitably, that their doctrines are false.

If you're sensing that this stuff is actually a long time coming, and is about more than just this simple issue of omnipresence, you're right.

As a lover of research papers, when I read most Christian articles, I'm disgusted. One sentence (verse) for three paragraphs of opinion is garbage and not even the most lenient of professors, were this any other book, would give more than an F to most Christian publications for their blatant in ability to quote their source more than themselves.

In Spanish class I was made to create a ten minute speech. You know how many typed pages that is? 8. You know how many pages of the Bible are usually read in sermons I've sat through? Lucky if 2-5. You know how long those sermons are? 30 minutes to a full hour. 2-5 minutes of scripture, on average, to 25-28 minutes or even 55-58 minutes of opinion on average. Yea, needless to say, my view of modern pastors is hitting an all time low.

Yes, to preempt the question, I've writen articles on the Bible myself, some even for college classes, and yes, I always quote my source more than myself. To not even at least even them out, is to show that your views are more important than those of your sources, and that you think you are the arbitar of knowledge. (Notably, right now, I'm being rather long winded myself. Course I know not many here haven't noticed the same patterns, so I'm not expressing just my own views, I'm sure. Besides, I'll admit right now, this is all my opinion, and I'm not currently giving any gospel or telling "God's truth".)

Yes, there IS much false doctine. Yes, it has wormed its way into every demonination, and onto every level, from foundational beliefs, to superflous beliefs. No I don't know exactly what to do. Yes, something must be done, and yes, it's gonna take more than just me.

And finally, and most importantly, yes, disrespect for the Bible, such as quoting things out of context, never examining doctrines by the Bible, instead of the other way around, silly study habits, poorly researched articles and missleading sermons, are all, I believe very firmly, the root of most, if not even all, of the modern confusion.

This is not our religion, this is God's truth. It does not belong to us, it belongs to Him. Insulting or disrespecting the Bible is not different than disrespecting God Himself.

But I disgress, that's just my motive for digging where I know doctrine says I shouldn't. Let's get back to digging, shall we?

______________________________________

But if our foundational doctrines cannot be proved, they are wrong, and if they are wrong, they are false doctrines that must be delt with as such.

Baptists can be wrong. I know this from personal experience. I've been wrong before, and God knows I'll be wrong again. In fact, I often find myself hoping to be wrong -right now a little bit-. Hoping that one day, if I just keep looking, I'll find something I missed. Something that shows me the modern church isn't losing all sight of the truths of God. Something that tells me, that at least, this won't be a death sentence to our faith, eventually taking it from it's dominate position. But I doubt I'm wrong, I just want to be.

But go ahead, call me a heritic, it's been done before and it doesn't surprise me in the least. Asking you to even examine certain doctrines is sacriligious itself, which is a testiment to how so many survive, dispite that they disagree, often have little to no Biblical support and yes, make no sense.

Back to deacon

________________________________________

The heavens are PART of the "earth" as I'm refering to and you probably know that. (Heaven, as in, where we go when we die and God's eternal house, I'm not discussing His existence there for the moment, but I would have thought that was clear so we'll leave that alone.) Heavens, since you have no reference yet I can only summize what you must be getting at, usually refers to the sky, not space. In the modern day, "earth" is our planet. You're confusing my modern speech with the old speech of the Bible. Maybe I should have said PLANET EARTH to be more specific, since yes, it did cross my mind that someone might bring up passages about God being in the sky.

Here I thought omniscience was another foundational doctrine. Why are YOU ignoring it? I thought things making sense was irrelivent.

I addressed this already. Page 2, post 17.

Out of context? So far, the scripture I've cross examined here, has been single verses, often irrelivent, in context does not even partain to this subbject, figurative, expressive and often indirectly related the subject, at best. No, it's not convincing.

Twisted that seems, agreed. But not when you see things from my perspective.

The clearest and easiest interpretation of Genesis is a six day creation, it even says these were morning and evening days. When is the morning and evening of one trillion years?

I see no scripture that lends to full omnipotence, hence I believe it should be dropped.

It all goes back to the Bible.

I'll fire this one back and ask, why does God need to be present somewhere inorder to influence something. Where is that written? It's not, in fact the opposite is true. God can command the very elements themselves at a distance.

You really think you're less important than pluto? I guess you don't realize the world and the universe weren't just made to look pretty. They were created for various reasons, most of them, for our benifit. I know that the God whom created Jupter in mere moments, a planet larger several thousand times than this whole earth, is powerful enough for me.

BTW, capitalize when you're refering to Him.

Psalm 144: 3 (context is the whole chapter, go ahead and read)

O LORD, what is man that you care for him,
the son of man that you think of him?

We were what was more important. He wanted to be with us. I think God wanted to be with man, not floating amongst the stars. Immanuel, our God is with us.

 

Isaiah 66
Palatka51, I missed you're point earlier.

To your credit, you already printed full context, that's at least showing respect. Knowing the context, you must also know this is not the subject of that passage, but I'll address the verses that do partain, since that is the purpose here.

The first two verses, are actually refering to God's authority, not any omnipresent existence. Sorry. I believe in taking scripture as it is presented in the Bible, not forever reading more and more into things, as I know is preached, but actually just leads to confusion. Therefore, the simple interpretation of this passage shows it to be irrelivent.