'There isn't a space God is not'

[tulipbee]

He knew before I acted

 

[oi_antz]

A very good question, though I think most would answer that He chooses to allow us free will- or at least the illusion of it, since omniscience implies that all our choices are known to God, from everlasting to everlasting. But free will isn't something I care to discuss right now; unless you can relate it to omnipresence.

Do you all see the difficulties here? The Buddhists and Hindus will tell us 'Thou art That'- God is present everywhere and always, which means He is within us. In fact He is us! We are not apart from Him, and He is not apart from us. The world, and matter, cannot be fallen; God sustains everything, and God is infallible.

Even if you try to say the Fall is the working of Satan, Satan is also a creation of God. Which would mean that God is also Satan, inescapably. If there is nowhere that God is not, all these things seem logically entrained.

Only those who do the will of God are one with Him. Otherwise they are opposed to Him. Put it to the test. Examine yourself. Do you do the will of God (YHWH), and if not, are you not opposed to Him?

 

[oi_antz]

He knew before I acted

Yes. Does He rejoice in your actions or grieve?

 

[ViaCrucis]

In http://www.christianforums.com/threads/biblical-inerrancy-vs-infallibility.7902876/#post-68475737, Tulipbee posted


I find that a concise and elegant statement about omnipresence, a topic that's long interested me.

If you think that God infuses and permeates the entire universe, then it seems that Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous poem 'Brahma' must be true:


If one believes that God is in every atom and every Galaxy at every moment, from everlasting to everlasting, that makes one a pantheist.

The trouble with that is, one of the 19th century popes declared pantheism a heresy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm,


It seems plain to me that, if God does indeed permeate all the universe, then the doctrine of the Fall becomes quite problematical; it implies that God Himself must somehow partake in fallen nature.

I know that some try a subtle end-run around the problems of pantheism with panentheism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism). That belief posits that

However, that still appears to leave the problem of the Fall unsolved, at least for Christian panentheists.

Does anyone here consider themselves a pantheist, or panentheist? If so, what's your view of the Fall?

Pantheism would be explicit heresy as it conflates Creator with creature. Panentheism is not heretical, insofar as it rightly regards God's utter transcendence and otherness from creation.

God is throughout all things, there is no place God is not. So panentheism can be regarded as an accurate term to describe God's everywhere-ness. But, again, it is crucial to understand that God is fundamentally other, and therefore transcends all things.

St. Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesian church, "There is ... one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In http://www.christianforums.com/threads/biblical-inerrancy-vs-infallibility.7902876/#post-68475737, Tulipbee posted


I find that a concise and elegant statement about omnipresence, a topic that's long interested me.

If you think that God infuses and permeates the entire universe, then it seems that Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous poem 'Brahma' must be true:


If one believes that God is in every atom and every Galaxy at every moment, from everlasting to everlasting, that makes one a pantheist.

The trouble with that is, one of the 19th century popes declared pantheism a heresy. As the Catholic Encyclopedia says at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11447b.htm,


It seems plain to me that, if God does indeed permeate all the universe, then the doctrine of the Fall becomes quite problematical; it implies that God Himself must somehow partake in fallen nature.

I know that some try a subtle end-run around the problems of pantheism with panentheism (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism). That belief posits that

However, that still appears to leave the problem of the Fall unsolved, at least for Christian panentheists.

Does anyone here consider themselves a pantheist, or panentheist? If so, what's your view of the Fall?

Yes, I'd say that I'm at least partial to a panentheist position; I don't see the problem that you see, especially if the definition you posted has any credence.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Jobar]

Only those who do the will of God are one with Him. Otherwise they are opposed to Him. Put it to the test. Examine yourself. Do you do the will of God (YHWH), and if not, are you not opposed to Him?

How is one to oppose the very creator and upholder of the universe?

Certainly I oppose what many say is His will; keep in mind, I am NOT a Christian, although I can mostly agree with Unitarian Universalists, among others.

But my central point here is that if God is truly present in all times and places, and is truly omnipotent, then the universe is unfolding exactly as He wills- however it may appear to we who are minute, and momentary.

 

[oi_antz]

How is one to oppose the very creator and upholder of the universe?

Certainly I oppose what many say is His will; keep in mind, I am NOT a Christian, although I can mostly agree with Unitarian Universalists, among others.

But my central point here is that if God is truly present in all times and places, and is truly omnipotent, then the universe is unfolding exactly as He wills- however it may appear to we who are minute, and momentary.

How do you define your use of the phrase "truly omnipotent?".

 

[Jobar]

All Powerful; able to work His will on His creation in any way.

I know all about the 'create a stone too heavy to lift' objections to that, but in effect that is in the same class as unstoppable force/immovable object paradoxes, and not valid if there is only one omnipotent power in the universe. God does not oppose Himself.

But again, I want to concentrate on omnipresence here. Of all the absolute properties attributed to God, I think I have heard it discussed less than omnipotence, omniscience, or omnibenevolence. And it seems to me to have the rather astonishing implications I have mentioned so far.

 

[tulipbee]

Yes. Does He rejoice in your actions or grieve?

Whatever "according to His pleasure" mean to you.

 

[tulipbee]

Only those who do the will of God are one with Him. Otherwise they are opposed to Him. Put it to the test. Examine yourself. Do you do the will of God (YHWH), and if not, are you not opposed to Him?

All elects do the will of God but not based on what man does down the road of his life. If God waiting on man, He'll be waiting forever so He knows already not to waste time. God does the saving, first. Southern baptist theologies are a false theology.

 

[tulipbee]

What was the experiment called, do you remember? Have any links, or sources? Are you talking about the Casimir effect?


I am not sure this is accurate. At what point does the pendulum disappear? It begins with only gravitational potential energy since it is not moving yet. After the pendulum is released, GPE is turned into kinetic energy.


I am highly skeptical of your claims here as they do not seem to accurately represent the energy pertaining to a pendulum. A pendulun demonstrates perfectly the idea of conservation of energy— that energy doesn’t just appear or disappear; it always comes from (or goes) somewhere.


Even in relation to vibrations, the claim in bold seems misleading. Vibration is just to mean that at the sub atomic level, all matter is energy. Everything around us is vibrating at one frequency or another. That in no way implies your body is expanded to pluto and back a hundred times per second....

The vibrating energy that the wall consists of is there for Jesus as much as it is for us. It seems then, it is Jesus who must be transparent, which is not true either. This is, of course, even assuming Jesus walked through walls, which is also a questionable outlook.

All of this doesn't even address my earlier post. Most of this is ambiguous. It seems to not connect at all.

To turn a long story into a short story is to take the time and read the model of physics from this guy's writings found at http://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Wild...=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0892812028
With his model, I mixed it with calvinism and zen and I come up with my own movement called zen christainity.
The maximum movement of the pendulum, even though your gravity idea is puzzling, this movement is so small to measure that maybe it only exist on paper like Einstein's ideas on paper. While I can no longer stand tv series due to it not completing the whole series that leaves me cut and dry, one tv show called flashforward, http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1441135/ gave me this idea: our galaxy is slightly oval so the maximum peak of the oval , our solar system reaches to that point and disappears and reappears in a flash. I think in the tv show, everyone blacked out for six minutes and saw the future. If the bible states something changes in a twink of an eye or faster than lightning then the maximium swing of the rotation of the galaxy changes. That pendulum movement is too small to measure then we must zoom in further. Our galaxy rotates every xxxxxx years, I think 23,000 years, it reaches two peaks and since the galaxy is so big, I would think the maximum would be that flash in the Bible.
I may sound crazy but if anyone wants really great ideas about how vibration works, I would read the book in the link. I'd say God is the vibration.

 

[tulipbee]

Edit: duplicate post but anyway those that might want to catch up on a little physic and visit here http://whystringtheory.com/toolbox/quantum-strings/

I've wondered about the differences between an open string and a closed string.
Makes me wonder if the open string is the regenerated and the closed string are the unregenerated or vice versa.

 

[elopez]

@tulipbee

I still don't see how any of that relates to omnipresence or further backs the definition you gave of it, nor does it seem to address my earlier post.

 

[tulipbee]

@tulipbee

I still don't see how any of that relates to omnipresence or further backs the definition you gave of it, nor does it seem to address my earlier post.

Guess we're not on the same page.

 

[oi_antz]

Whatever "according to His pleasure" mean to you.

Thank you, I have enough clarity of your position to be satisfied.

 

[oi_antz]

All elects do the will of God but not based on what man does down the road of his life. If God waiting on man, He'll be waiting forever so He knows already not to waste time. God does the saving, first. Southern baptist theologies are a false theology.

I don't know about Southern Baptist theologies. I am sure they include Penal Substitution Atonement and everlasting torment for unbelievers. I know that those are false doctrines according to scripture.

 

[tulipbee]

I don't know about Southern Baptist theologies. I am sure they include Penal Substitution Atonement and everlasting torment for unbelievers. I know that those are false doctrines according to scripture.

Tell me more about the first thing you listed.

 

[elopez]

Guess we're not on the same page.

No, I believe we are not. You dodge the inaccuracy of energy pointed out in your previous post. You then claim:

With his model, I mixed it with calvinism and zen and I come up with my own movement called zen christainity.

Though you are simply attempting to mix conflicting idealogies, as zen and really any form of Christianity are mutually exclusive. Zen is about attaining self enlightenment through meditation, whereas the only thing similar in Christianity is prayer, yet we do not rely on self enlightenment rather it is from God solely.

 

[oi_antz]

Tell me more about the first thing you listed.

Thanks for asking this! I am always enthusiastic to present a truer view of the gospel, I hope this does not invoke staff action.

It was when I read the statement by ViaCrucis, which I have copied to my signature, that my mind was opened to view the gospel in a way that eventually grew to become a realisation that Penal Substitutionary Atonement is an incorrect doctrine that is commonly taught as the means by which Jesus has achieved propitiation for sin. Penal Substitution basically says that because the wages of sin is death, we are indebted to God because of our sin, and we must die. But if God wants us to live again, He will be satisfied if Jesus would die. This makes sense to them because He has not accumulated the debt of death, because He has not sinned, so according to their logic the penalty can be transferred.

So anyway, I was able to begin viewing the gospel in absence of this doctrine, and do you know what, it made so much sense! All of a sudden God is not some ridiculous bloodthirsty judge who cannot forgive unless someone dies, but rather He is a loving, good Lord who wants so much that we can live forever and make the world that He wants, but that we have trouble doing so. So He begets the perfectly obedient human, His own Essence in human form, so that we can follow Him as a living Lord and leader in the flesh. But some people just cannot do it. They couldn't give up their own sin to follow Him, so they murdered Him. Yet God allowed this, so that we can know how much He really does desire that we will turn to Him for forgiveness. See, Jesus Christ's murder doesn't make forgiveness easier for God. It must be the hardest thing to forgive! Yet He has done it! This is the true message of grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Everlasting life has a reasonable operation, that is not achieved by waving of a magic wand to make us all holy, but by the overcoming of sin by real repentance. This is spelled out in Genesis 3:22 and Revelation 2:7.

I have made a thread about Substitutionary Atonement, and it is clear that Penal Substitution is not derived from scripture, and that Jesus' disciples never understood the gospel that way. However, there is some substitution in the sacrifice, but quite the opposite! Jesus gave up His own life, the only one who could represent God perfectly, so that we can continue to live in His place, taking the light to the world. WE are the substitution for HIM! Nobody lights a lamp and places it under the bed, and what He says to us in private we are to shout from the rooftops. Then with that understanding, you can see the real depth of the sacrifice. The other option of course was to move Armageddon forward to the garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:53). This is the reason why He said that He had come to give His life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45), as He had to give His life in order to establish the new covenant by His blood to fulfill His prophecy of Matthew 21:43.

I have not spent much effort denigrating PSA, though for someone who is comfortable to view it skeptically, it can be seen to have many flaws. Some of them have been listed by a helpful fellow in my thread about it: Why Substitutionary Atonement? (Reply #14)

 

[tulipbee]

No, I believe we are not. You dodge the inaccuracy of energy pointed out in your previous post. You then claim:
Though you are simply attempting to mix conflicting idealogies, as zen and really any form of Christianity are mutually exclusive. Zen is about attaining self enlightenment through meditation, whereas the only thing similar in Christianity is prayer, yet we do not rely on self enlightenment rather it is from God solely.

Thank God I'm not a fundie but I'm good on my end just the way God planned it