Where does God live?

:)
My heart cried in shame for I'd stepped away
From the pure sown path of God.
Aching with repentance and quiet desperation,
I lifted my hand in search of the impress of His grace

Fearing my unworthiness would keep me from
The touch of even His fingertips.
But oh the glory that overcame me
And taught me His enduring love

When I felt the whole of His forgiving
Hand enclose the whole of mine.
'Elsie'
 

An alternative Genesis?

First, God created an energy force -- pure energy that in itself created 'mass'. God gave this mass an attraction force through the warping of space and time. God called the attraction, gravity.

God then used this mass and the energy forces associated with it to create neutrons and protons. God brought the neutrons and protons together to form a collection of two simple elements, hydrogen & helium. God saw that this was good.

The gravity, through the warping of space and time, slowly brought these two elements together, forming vast clouds of hydrogen and Helium. God rested for eons of years, as pressure & heat increased as the clouds clasped within themselves. The superheat and pressure within the clouds eventually sparking nuclear fusion to form stars. And thus, God created the stars.

God then created stellar nucleosynthesis, which caused more complicated elements to form within the core of the stars from the original hydrogen & helium. God seeing that this was good, and after waiting another 10 billion years, caused the stars to explode, to scatter all the new elements throughout the universe.

God then created the planets from those new elements, as they slowly came together through his earlier creation of mass and gravity.

What comes next, I wonder. These days, do we even have to wonder?
 

Last edited:
An alternative Genesis?

First, God created an energy force -- pure energy that in itself created 'mass'. God gave this mass an attraction force through the warping of space and time. God called the attraction, gravity.

God then used this mass and the energy forces associated with it to create neutrons and protons. God brought the neutrons and protons together to form a collection of two simple elements, hydrogen & helium. God saw that this was good.

The gravity, through the warping of space and time, slowly brought these two elements together, forming vast clouds of hydrogen and Helium. God rested for eons of years, as pressure & heat increased as the clouds clasped within themselves. The superheat and pressure eventually sparking nuclear fusion to form stars. And thus, God created the stars.

God then created stellar nucleosynthesis, which caused more complicated elements to form within the core of the stars from the original hydrogen & helium. God seeing that this was good, and after waiting another 10 billion years, caused the stars to explode, to scatter all the new elements throughout the universe.

God then created the planets from those new elements, as they slowly came together through his earlier creation of mass and gravity.

What comes next, I wonder. Do we even have to wonder?
To bad the timeline is similar to Genesis. An alternative including the evolution of humans & animals could have been interesting.

I kind of view there being a God & Santa Clause as pretty much the same. They both are in the mind due to stories. They both live someplace that isn't really accessible. Fear of being bad has consequences. Only difference is once the myth of Santa Clause is exposed & nothing happens the fear goes away.
 
I wonder -- if God created everything, would that mean he created the angels as well, with free will? And if their free will led to rebellion in heaven, does that suggest free will isn't truly compatible with a perfect heavenly existence, especially if it leads to disobedience and harm? Then perhaps causing some angels to be banished. Some might then consider God is out of his depth due to the situation his actions created in heaven.

When we consider the billions of people who have lived with their own sense of right and wrong, shaped by the political and cultural contexts of their time, what’s the likelihood of a rebellion in heaven being even more significant? Then through into the mix of different religions and religious beliefs here on earth. What kind of heavenly war would all this cause? How might this be avoided? Perhaps in heaven, humans -- or even angels, would need to abandon their earthly personalities, or at least most aspects of their own personalities, and adopt a collective personality given to them by God. Would that kind of transformation allow for harmony in heaven?


It almost seems like the act of creationism might be an experiment that went awry. I agree with you that if humans were created without free will, it could have saved a lot of the pain, suffering, and rebellion. Free will gives us the ability to choose our actions, but unfortunately, the human race has made a mess of it.

Some people believe that everything about the individual is preordained, which would imply that we have no true sense of free will -- and therefore no genuine sense of right or wrong either.

I've mentioned in other threads (the reincarnation thread?) that as a 5-year-old, I had a sense that I had been here before, perhaps many times. I imagined a cycle of birth, earthly life, death, heaven (or some similar place), and then birth again. It felt as though I was continually being tested and developed until I became the person that God, or some higher force, would deem worthy to remain in heaven. Perhaps it’s only after many cycles on Earth -- developing both my personality and free will in a way that might be compatible with heaven, that I might be ready for that next step and stay there.


Me neither, or at least in the way it's described in the bible.


Then that would suggest that god is formless, which may be the case. In turn, it throws into question that we were created in the form of God, which I personally struggle with anyway. Could God as a formless universal energy, explain the continuation of life and death and life again in a natural cycle?

If we are indeed one with this creative energy, does that mean our personality, consciousness, and or soul is somehow preserved within it, even if it transforms into something else after death? Or does it simply dissolve, as part of the ongoing process of nature? In that case, what about the unique aspects of who we are, our memories, thoughts, emotions? Are they just temporary or something more eternal? Part of the energy you mention?

I read Genesis and I think, "Who on earth has written this?! It doesn't seem like something that has been sent down to us." It seems to be mostly written in the wrong order. Written in the imagination of humans, as their first attempt to get to grips with science.
It is difficult to shift one's thinking from the concept of a personal God to one more of an energy or pervasive impersonal presence, but it just makes more sense to me, given the history of the world. Perhaps we all make God into something we can relate to, or others simply choose to believe in randomness.

As to your question, I believe the energy that gets transferred to us and will ultimately get transferred to other organisms is all God, if you prefer to call it that. If a cat eats a bird, it is still God. It is just expressed into another form. Does it retain any memory from a former life? My guess would be no, but I do think we can commune with other life forms and feel the common essence. All life is related and came from the same beginning. We are all the progeny of that universal energy.
 
[thinking out loud]
What language have you read the Bible in? Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or English?
Is it possible anything may have been translated inaccurately ... or lost in translation and language evolution?

Not only that, but different religions interpret The Word differently. Which one is "accurate"?

A scientist coming to this thread might see "Bobcat" beneath an animal image and find that to be an impossibility.
No way a Bobcat (Genus: Lynx) could have posted. Yet we all know who it is ... a few may even know where you live.
Is the name and image accurate or is there something you wish to convey?
[/thinking out loud]
I was asking a question about what you wrote. You said: "The Bible is filled with allegory and metaphor among other tools, men with imperfect limited knowledge and understanding".

My question is, are those stories in the Bible accurate in your opinion? Were there talking donkeys, the sun standing still, worldwide flood, raising the dead, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, walking in a fiery furnace, and dozens more, or were they just stories, no matter what translation you choose.

I am not here to refute them, and I won't pick them apart. I was just wondering, from what you wrote, if you meant they were just stories, and not accurate accounts of what really happened.
 
I was asking a question about what you wrote. You said: "The Bible is filled with allegory and metaphor among other tools, men with imperfect limited knowledge and understanding".
As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.
My question is, are those stories in the Bible accurate in your opinion? Were there talking donkeys, the sun standing still, worldwide flood, raising the dead, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, walking in a fiery furnace, and dozens more, or were they just stories, no matter what translation you choose.

I am not here to refute them, and I won't pick them apart. I was just wondering, from what you wrote, if you meant they were just stories, and not accurate accounts of what really happened.
It is rather immature to read the bible as a factual account of past events but that is how we tend to read it if we are not paying attention to the subtleties of the story.

This is why theologians exist. They have not only studied the texts in the original languages, they also have dug deep into the history and culture of ancient civilisations. Their commentaries can be enlightening if we have ears to hear and eyes to see what is before us in the texts and in our daily lives.

Different theologians have different thoughts on the matter of the underlying meaning of religious texts.

Paul, writing to the infant church in Corinth had something to say on this topic -

In the Bible, the metaphor of milk and meat is used to describe different levels of spiritual maturity and understanding. Milk represents basic teachings that are easy to digest, while meat represents deeper, more complex truths that require greater spiritual maturity. The concept is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. For example, 1 Corinthians 3:2 states, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able".
 
As a literary device or artistic form, an allegory is a narrative or visual representation in which a character, place, or event can be interpreted to represent a meaning with moral or political significance. Authors have used allegory throughout history in all forms of art to illustrate or convey complex ideas and concepts in ways that are comprehensible or striking to its viewers, readers, or listeners.

It is rather immature to read the bible as a factual account of past events but that is how we tend to read it if we are not paying attention to the subtleties of the story.

This is why theologians exist. They have not only studied the texts in the original languages, they also have dug deep into the history and culture of ancient civilisations. Their commentaries can be enlightening if we have ears to hear and eyes to see what is before us in the texts and in our daily lives.

Different theologians have different thoughts on the matter of the underlying meaning of religious texts.

Paul, writing to the infant church in Corinth had something to say on this topic -

In the Bible, the metaphor of milk and meat is used to describe different levels of spiritual maturity and understanding. Milk represents basic teachings that are easy to digest, while meat represents deeper, more complex truths that require greater spiritual maturity. The concept is mentioned in 1 Corinthians and Hebrews. For example, 1 Corinthians 3:2 states, "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able".
Thank you. I was familiar with the use of allegories and parables, in storytelling to awaken the listener to a deeper meaning, such as the story of the prodigal son, or the Good Samaritan, or the lost sheep. However, the ones I mentioned are not portrayed as allegories or parables, but actual happenings.

Again, I am not here to refute them, or pick them apart. I only asked if he believed they were accurate because it seemed that he was indicating that they may not be. I was only curious as to what he meant. Other than that, to each his own.
 
Thank you. I was familiar with the use of allegories and parables, in storytelling to awaken the listener to a deeper meaning, such as the story of the prodigal son, or the Good Samaritan, or the lost sheep. However, the ones I mentioned are not portrayed as allegories or parables, but actual happenings.

Again, I am not here to refute them, or pick them apart. I only asked if he believed they were accurate because it seemed that he was indicating that they may not be. I was only curious as to what he meant. Other than that, to each his own.
He doesn't have to answer to you or anyone else, including me, if he chooses not to. In any case, the word "accurate" can have different levels of meaning. A simple yes or no may not be sufficient or he may simply have become tired of arguing.

IMO, "I was only..." sounds a bit disingenuous ???
 
Hmm ... Maybe we should recap to be clear.
I made this post ...

The Bible is filled with allegory and metaphor among other tools, men with imperfect limited knowledge and understanding might use to convey something beyond their total comprehension and in a manner in which others might relate, attempt to understand, and accept. While human science might hold these things to the light of day, examined from all sides, and scoff. It's been my experience there are things outside of modern human science that continue to elude scientific hypothesis. Who knows what the next two thousand years might bring, but I doubt man will ultimately have all the answers. Well, not until that one day we all face ... some, more than once.
That post prompted your asking a simple question ...
Are you saying that some of the things in the Bible aren't accurate?
I answered ...
I'm saying what I said
[thinking out loud]
What language have you read the Bible in? Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek or English?
Is it possible anything may have been translated inaccurately ... or lost in translation and language evolution?

Not only that, but different religions interpret The Word differently. Which one is "accurate"?

A scientist coming to this thread might see "Bobcat" beneath an animal image and find that to be an impossibility.
No way a Bobcat (Genus: Lynx) could have posted. Yet we all know who it is ... a few may even know where you live.
Is the name and image accurate or is there something you wish to convey?
[/thinking out loud]
Apparently you weren't satisfied and only then you brought up extra stuff and alluded I attributed it (something?) to translation when that wasn't what the original question stated or answer was about ...
My question is, are those stories in the Bible accurate in your opinion? Were there talking donkeys, the sun standing still, worldwide flood, raising the dead, walking on water, parting the Red Sea, walking in a fiery furnace, and dozens more, or were they just stories, no matter what translation you choose.
Furthermore, you stated ...
I am not here to refute them, and I won't pick them apart.
... neither am I nor will I. And I will leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I usually have a few bottles of 'spirits' around the house - it helps me to dissolve the doubt and find new answers - and when the last drop has gone then I feel whole again?
 
well I usually try to remove the 'w' and the 'el' first and then it works - once doubleview but now in the far north so I can look down on everyone more easily?
 
Following up on @Naturally and @bobcat posts above about scripture accuracy. For those wondering about the veracity of the New Testament Bible in terms of what ancients believed, I will suggest first reading the below on how scholars strongly view how accurate oral tradition tended to be. Note, inerrancy (Holy Spirit inspiration) has no bearing on most oral tradition.

Oral gospel traditions - Wikipedia

One of the most important sections of New Testament scripture was Paul's first letter to the Church of Corinthians generally thought to be about 52 to 57 AD (~20 years after death) based on where the Gospel of Luke and Luke's Acts place Paul on his third missionary journeys. The Gospel of Mark (first gospel) was written somewhat afterward that has a tremendous cross checking value in validating Paul's letters and how oral tradition was consistent. The fact that so many followers in those events were still alive at the time gospels were later written down, meant oral traditions could not easily be changed without large numbers of followers objecting.

The fact that each of the three synoptic gospels independently varies slightly in actually wording is exactly what scholars expect in oral tradition. This 1Cor:15 section makes absolutely clear Jesus's followers absolutely believed he rose from the dead. Why so many were willing to endure punishments and even die for what they believed because they had actually witnessed a resurrected Jesus. And if so we Christians have strong reasons to believe in the possibility of eternal life.

1 Corinthians 15 (NIV)
The Resurrection of Christ
1 Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.
2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11 Whether, then, it is I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.
 
Last edited:
For me, the most compelling evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is something that I was not aware of, but which made perfect sense to me when I heard it for the first time.

Apparently Jesus had a brother named James, and other siblings who for the most part wanted nothing to do with his very dangerous ministry. James was not one of his disciples and appears to have had no role in his ministry.

After the crucifixion James changed after seeing the risen Christ.

As a sceptic myself, I understand how firmly held scepticism can dissolve in the face of a very personal and undeniable experience.

James was a son of Mary and Joseph and therefore a half-brother to Jesus and brother to Joseph, Simon, Judas, and their sisters (Matthew 13:55). In the Gospels, James is mentioned a couple of times, but at that time he misunderstood Jesus’ ministry and was not a believer (John 7:2-5). James becomes one of the earliest witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:7). He then stays in Jerusalem and forms part of the group of believers who pray in the upper room (Acts 1:14). From that time forward, James’ status within the Jerusalem church begins to grow.

More about James, the brother of Jesus, here - Who was James, the brother of Jesus, in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
 
Hmm ... Maybe we should recap to be clear.
I made this post ...

That post prompted your asking a simple question ...

I answered ...


Apparently you weren't satisfied and only then you brought up extra stuff and alluded I attributed it (something?) to translation when that wasn't what the original question stated or answer was about ...

Furthermore, you stated ...

... neither am I nor will I. And I will leave it at that.
I really don't care if you choose to answer or not because it has nothing to do with the original post. I was only asking for clarification on something you wrote. And I will leave it at that.
 
He doesn't have to answer to you or anyone else, including me, if he chooses not to. In any case, the word "accurate" can have different levels of meaning. A simple yes or no may not be sufficient or he may simply have become tired of arguing.

IMO, "I was only..." sounds a bit disingenuous ???
Good grief. Relax, I don't really care.
 
Hmm ... Maybe we should recap to be clear.
I made this post ...

That post prompted your asking a simple question ...

I answered ...


Apparently you weren't satisfied and only then you brought up extra stuff and alluded I attributed it (something?) to translation when that wasn't what the original question stated or answer was about ...

Furthermore, you stated ...

... neither am I nor will I. And I will leave it at that.
I believe Bobcat has genuinely tried not to show his contempt for belief in a personal God.
But his own unshakable belief in his own opinions do not allign with The God of Science, which he supports, but whose priority is: Keep an Open Mind.
People with unshakable beliefs are dangerous. Live and let live --until we must rethink that.
 
Last edited:
I believe Bobcat has genuinely tried not to show his contempt for belief in a personal God.
But his own unshakable belief in his own opinions do not allign with The God of Science, which he supports, but whose priority is: Keep an Open Mind.
People with unshakable beliefs are dangerous. Live and let let live --until we must rethink that.
Thank you.
My beliefs are always a work in progress, as I learn more from what I can discern as credible evidence.
I'm not sure who the God of Science is. I only support it as a method, but not to give me all the answers.
Personally, I don't see people with unshakable beliefs as dangerous, unless of course they form a cult that views society or other beliefs as something that must be eliminated.
My nature is that I'm a curious person. If people say there is no God, I would like to know how they can be so certain of that. It doesn't seem reasonable to me to categorically conclude things unless you have solid concrete evidence. If a person believes one way or another, that's different. I may want to know why, and if I sense my inquisitiveness is not welcome, then I will respect the boundary.
If I have offended anyone with my questions, then I apologize.
 
, I don't see people with unshakable beliefs as dangerous, unless of course they form a cult that views society or other beliefs as something that must be eliminated.
You have perfectly described communism, sir, except of course that communism is a bit bigger than a cult, it is part and parcel of socialism.

This thread has been political from the first four words.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top