Theodicy

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote:

“God's omni-presence doesn't mean that God is physically present everywhere, as if God is physical to begin with.”

I wrote:

I wrote: What does this mean? Are you saying that God cannot be physically present anywhere since he doesn’t have a physical body? Or are you saying that God is spiritually present but not physically present? If so, what does spiritual presence entail?

mattrose wrote:

What would you even mean by God being physically present anywhere (other than in Jesus?)? I am saying that the doctrine of omni-presence has to do with the fact that no place in the physical realm is outside of God's sovereignty. I am under the impression that that is the classic definition of omni-presence.

I appreciate the definition although it does nothing to clear up the confusion I have about your first (and second) statement. You didn't answer my question about what spiritual presence entails. I understand your objection to God being "physically present" (I should have said "really" present or "actually" present) but would you also object to the statement that God is spiritually present everywhere in this world? You believe God exists, so surely you believe that God is present somewhere, right?

[mattrose]

I appreciate the definition although it does nothing to clear up the confusion I have about your first (and second) statement. You didn't answer my question about what spiritual presence entails. I understand your objection to God being "physically present" (I should have said "really" present or "actually" present) but would you also object to the statement that God is spiritually present everywhere in this world? You believe God exists, so surely you believe that God is present somewhere, right?

I don't believe God is made up of stuff like we are. I Believe God is the one that made the stuff. I believe God is spirit. I don't believe that spirit is 'present somewhere' (as if we could locate God if our spaceship was powerful enough). As I said before, I don't believe omnipresence has to do with physical presence. I'm fine with the phrase 'spiritual presence.' You ask what spiritual presence would entail, in my mind. I would answer that the sense in which God is present is a matter of relationship (since God is trinity). To determine what God's presence entails in any given setting you would just discover the relationship b/w the created things in that location and God.

As a quick example... the other day, during our worship service, I had an extra sense of God's presence. I would assume, from this, that I (and possibly others) was in a better state of relationship to God. More open to God-activity. More worshipful. As spirit, God is everywhere discoverable... and yet discoverable only in various relationships and degrees of relationships.

[psimmond]

mattrose wrote: I don't believe God is made up of stuff like we are. I Believe God is the one that made the stuff. I believe God is spirit. I don't believe that spirit is 'present somewhere' (as if we could locate God if our spaceship was powerful enough). As I said before, I don't believe omnipresence has to do with physical presence. I'm fine with the phrase 'spiritual presence.' You ask what spiritual presence would entail, in my mind. I would answer that the sense in which God is present is a matter of relationship (since God is trinity). To determine what God's presence entails in any given setting you would just discover the relationship b/w the created things in that location and God.

As a quick example... the other day, during our worship service, I had an extra sense of God's presence. I would assume, from this, that I (and possibly others) was in a better state of relationship to God. More open to God-activity. More worshipful. As spirit, God is everywhere discoverable... and yet discoverable only in various relationships and degrees of relationships.

This is interesting. I've never heard anything like this before. I'm wondering, however, if you're open to the possibility that God, who is spirit, in addition to being everywhere sovereign is actually present everywhere on this earth--in the Gobi desert, at the top of Mt. Rainier, etc. Of course, I can't prove that he is, but this is my understanding from Psalms 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24, 1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:28, etc.

I do believe that at different times and for different reasons God allows us to sense his presence--like you did during the worship service; sometimes this sensation is so strong it almost seems physical. And at other times I believe God makes it impossible for people to sense his presence--some of the Psalms refer to God hiding himself--but I don't believe he is in actuality any less present than he was before hiding himself.

Here's a link to a sermon by John Wesley on God's omnipresence that I think is quite good: http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resource ... nce-of-God

(Wesley is one of the Bible teachers that I have the greatest respect for and although I don't agree with everything he taught, I do agree with him on most everything.)

[dwilkins]

I would suggest that you take a look at "The Corinthian Body" by Dale Martin. In it, he goes through a detailed analysis of why our conception of "spiritual" is off base.

http://www.amazon.com/Corinthian-Body-P ... thian+body

His point is basically that since the dawn of the scientific age we've defined spiritual as non-material. In other words, anything that can be measured would be normal and everything that can't be measured is paranormal. Therefore, "spiritual" is a non-material concept for us. On the other hand, back in the first century, everything was normal. It existed on a continuum on which four elements (earth, water, fire, air) existed. On the far right, say, is the invisible air-type stuff. That's the stuff of pneumas (or "spiritual" in our translations). For them it was just as real as anything else, it was just invisible and ethereal (which helps to understand Paul's point in 1st Cor. 15 where the resurrection provides a pneumas body) . To understand Paul's points about "spiritual" things you have to back up into their perspective. Then, you have to ask yourself whether they were just using language like we would, scientifically. The answer likely no, but we can't help but think on a scientific plane. The book isn't an easy read because he's wordy, but it's worth it.

Doug

[mattrose]

This is interesting. I've never heard anything like this before. I'm wondering, however, if you're open to the possibility that God, who is spirit, in addition to being everywhere sovereign is actually present everywhere on this earth--in the Gobi desert, at the top of Mt. Rainier, etc. Of course, I can't prove that he is, but this is my understanding from Psalms 139:7-10, Jeremiah 23:24, 1 Kings 8:27, Acts 17:28, etc.

I think I would say the same thing about God's presence as I said above. God is present in the Gobi desert in that God is the Creator and Sustainer of the world. If God hadn't created, it wouldn't be there. If God didn't sustain, it would come to chaos and dissolve back into nothingness.

I do believe that at different times and for different reasons God allows us to sense his presence--like you did during the worship service; sometimes this sensation is so strong it almost seems physical. And at other times I believe God makes it impossible for people to sense his presence--some of the Psalms refer to God hiding himself--but I don't believe he is in actuality any less present than he was before hiding himself.

I would agree with all of this

Here's a link to a sermon by John Wesley on God's omnipresence that I think is quite good: http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resource ... nce-of-God

(Wesley is one of the Bible teachers that I have the greatest respect for and although I don't agree with everything he taught, I do agree with him on most everything.)

Thanks! Given that I'm an ordained minister in the Wesleyan Church... I'm probably obligated to read this anyways

[mattrose]

I would suggest that you take a look at "The Corinthian Body" by Dale Martin. In it, he goes through a detailed analysis of why our conception of "spiritual" is off base.

http://www.amazon.com/Corinthian-Body-P ... thian+body

His point is basically that since the dawn of the scientific age we've defined spiritual as non-material. In other words, anything that can be measured would be normal and everything that can't be measured is paranormal. Therefore, "spiritual" is a non-material concept for us. On the other hand, back in the first century, everything was normal.

Doug

Thanks for the link. It sounds like something I would basically agree with. In saying the spiritual is non-material, I am not arguing that it is less real. If anything, it is more real (ala CS Lewis).