Where do you 'locate' God?

[Lisdogan]

As I mature, I get different feelings and ideas about where God ‘is’ when I commune with Him through prayer, meditation, silence, music. Sometimes He seems very near, sometimes very far: His ‘location’ as a Being remains a mystery.

I think we can assume, very crudely, that the Holy Spirit is around us at all times. We are told that Christ is with His Father (seated at the right hand).

We believe that God Creator is transcendent and omnipresent, everywhere. But God immanent, the one who loves us and whom we love, to whom we go in prayer: where is He?

There are perhaps a number of possibiities:

(1) He is infused in my flesh and bones, He pervades my very being, as I am His creation: He and I are one;
(2) He is ‘in my heart’;
(3) He is in the space I have emptied for Him, inside my spirit (we must empty ourselves to make a place for the Lord);
(4) He is beside me, near me, in my vicinity;
(5) He is experienced only through the presence of the Holy Spirit all around me;
(6) He is somewhere in the sky above;
(7) He is above the sky, in heaven (where is that?);
(8) He is in the galaxy somewhere, in the universe, in the multiverse - somewhere in ‘space’;
(9) He is in the [empty space] outside universal infinity;
(10) He is somewhere else - other.

Where do you ‘locate’ God? I keep on changing, but think that other people must have a fixed ‘location’ in their mind where they will find God when they want to communicate with Him or be with Him.

Can you help?

In Christ,

 

[Newbie2]

I was tempted to say that I use my GPS…God Positioning Sensor…

For me, I’d say in the same vicinity as I happen to be at the time, although when I’m tempted or am sinning, I tend to think of him far, far away. Big mistake.

 

[John7]

(2) He is ‘in my heart’;

Where do you ‘locate’ God?

At a personal level I believe he is in my heart

Gal 4:6 “And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the **Spirit **of his Son **into **your hearts, crying, Abba, Father”

 

[promethius]

(1) He is infused in my flesh and bones, He pervades my very being, as I am His creation: He and I are one;

this is actually an old heresy. We are not made up of “God stuff”

(2) He is ‘in my heart’;
(3) He is in the space I have emptied for Him, inside my spirit (we must empty ourselves to make a place for the Lord);

These are two ways roughly of saying the same thing, but both resemble an aspect of catholic teaching

(4) He is beside me, near me, in my vicinity;

More on “my theory” down below…

(5) He is experienced only through the presence of the Holy Spirit all around me;

That depends, really, on your take on how the Holy Spirit works.

(6) He is somewhere in the sky above;

Scientifically untenable. Anything which exists in a finite universe composed of physical laws is bound by those physical laws: to be finite and limited… AND therefore observable and scientifically verifiable.

(7) He is above the sky, in heaven (where is that?);

same as some of your other options, more on this in my theory below…

(8) He is in the galaxy somewhere, in the universe, in the multiverse - somewhere in ‘space’;

scientifically untenable for the same reasons listed above.

(9) He is in the [empty space] outside universal infinity;

Bingo, in my opinion, but let me go into that…

So, multiple universe theory (for a good intro, look up the flash video “Imagining the Tenth Dimension”) says that there are distinctly possible other universes. While we can’t know this, what we CAN know is that our universe, and every aspect of it, are finite. The physical laws and physical dimensions such as length, width, height, time, etc, are only defined as we see them inside our own universe. In another universe, the laws and dimensions may be entirely different… gravity may repulse instead of attract in one, and be ten times stronger… the entire universe would be a giant pinball game…

Outside of our universe or any other possible universe (which, as scientists will tell you, we theorize but can never prove), however, is where we are interested. There is no physical law, no dimensions. We can never measure what can exist there because our ability to rationally observe is limited by our own scientific law observations. Without those laws and dimensions, no observations can exist.

The Church has theorized that God is infinite and exists outside of time. This leaves us with one option: God does not exist inside the universe. (I know the objection here, how is God with us if he isn’t inside the universe? I’ll get to that part) God is eternally in a sort of “present” whereby all events are viewable, but no such thing exists as “foreknowledge” (so much for those pesky theories of predestination…). Without length, width, or height, there is no such thing as dimensional limitation. God can be infinite because there are no limits for Him.

Okay, so what about God being with us, around us, and in our hearts while not being in the universe? Well, let’s stop and think of a person who only exists in two dimensions (for this case, we’ll say length and width)… that person looks at a cube. Because that person only exists in two dimensions, height is unobservable. The cube, to the two dimensional person, is only a square of X length, Y width, and 0 height. Now we compare this to a one dimensional person (who we’ll say exists only in the dimension of length). He looks at the same cube our 2D person does, but he can’t see width. What he observes is a line of length X, 0 width, and 0 height. What does our zero dimension person see? The entirety of the cube is only observed as a point.

So, we’ll look now at the universe. Our universe, being finite, has a shape. Scientists theorize that it is one of three possible shapes, with a sphere being the common thought right now (and that’s actually a bad thing as it means the universe will eventually die). But length, width, height, and time only exist INSIDE our universe. What about outside? Outside is a zero dimensional existence, so the entire universe, left to right, up to down, front to back, and both forward and backward in time are observable as a point. With no depth to the universe, God doesn’t have to “reach in” to touch things and be there with people. Necessarily ALL areas are collapsed down into one, so all points at all times are immediately available to God.

Okay, I’ll lay off there because behind that the scientific explanation gets a little harder to follow. The things I like about this massive combination of physics and theology however:

1. In keeping with Catholic teaching
2. explains God’s omniscience while not implying fatalism and predestination
3. Explains the nature of an infinite God, even though we can have no concept of what a zero dimension existence is.
4. Settles scientific claims that if God exists He should be observable, since nothing outside the universe is observable.

There’s other reasons I like it too, but those have more to do with the imposition of miracles, and that’s something I haven’t dived into here. If you want me to go off on that line I will, but I don’t want to derail your thread

 

[Lisdogan]

this is actually an old heresy. We are not made up of “God stuff”

Let me know the name of the heresy if you have it: I seem to be holding onto a number of them at the moment!

Scientifically untenable. Anything which exists in a finite universe composed of physical laws is bound by those physical laws: to be finite and limited… AND therefore observable and scientifically verifiable.

Right, here is my first problem with the theory you have set out: I have never heard a universe described as finite. As far as our tiny minds can figure, our universe is expanding faster than anticipated. Scientists now also posit that the lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s laws of relativity suggest the existence of an eternal and infinite number of eternal and infinite universes: an infinite multiverse. I am working on the basis of that proposition. Basic lack of fit between you and me.

There is the question about what our universe is expanding into - and that’s where the [empty space] comes in ne? But in the end this too is, as God is, unknowable, unprovable, a Mystery.

So, multiple universe theory (for a good intro, look up the flash video “Imagining the Tenth Dimension”) says that there are distinctly possible other universes. While we can’t know this, what we CAN know is that our universe, and every aspect of it, are finite.

I have to disagree with the basic premise of ‘finite’, as above.

The physical laws and physical dimensions such as length, width, height, time, etc, are only defined as we see them inside our own universe. In another universe, the laws and dimensions may be entirely different… gravity may repulse instead of attract in one, and be ten times stronger… the entire universe would be a giant pinball game…

Agreed.

Outside of our universe or any other possible universe (which, as scientists will tell you, we theorize but can never prove), however, is where we are interested. There is no physical law, no dimensions. We can never measure what can exist there because our ability to rationally observe is limited by our own scientific law observations. Without those laws and dimensions, no observations can exist.

So we may be interested; we might be able to theorise in a fantasy kind of way; but we cannot know the unknowable because our brains are inadequately evolved - or we are so far too stupid and too technically-challenged. That means however that we cannot accuratetly posit from the little evidence we do have either (1) that our universe is finite or (2) that there is an outside outside the universe (finite or not - and the idea of [empty space] is not a satisfactory conclusion for scientists) or (3) that there are no laws or dimensions ‘out there’ where we cannot go body or mind. (Not only laws and dimensions are at stake, but the foundations for creation of life - absent, present or different - chemicals, gases, formations, and as you say, gravity etc)

The ***Church ***has theorized that God is infinite and exists outside of time.

God Creator, transcendent, we are talking about here. I have had this image of ‘God’ sort of ‘floating’ in the empty space outside out expanding universe, First Cause, Unborn, Beginningless, Uncreated and Endless.

God is eternally in a sort of “present” whereby all events are viewable. Without length, width, or height, there is no such thing as dimensional limitation. God can be infinite because there are no limits for Him.

So, if I get you, He is in an infinity (a ‘present’) that surrounds our finite universe or universes? That leaves me, the worshipper, tumbling around in a very dark, empty and cold space if I try to get to Him. So let’s go on to the God immanent, the nearby one we pray to.

Okay, so what about God being with us, around us, and in our hearts while not being in the universe? … So, we’ll look at the universe. Our universe, *being finite, * ?] has a shape. But length, width, height, and time only exist INSIDE our universe. What about outside? Outside is a zero dimensional existence, so the entire universe, left to right, up to down, front to back, and both forward and backward in time are observable as a point. With no depth to the universe, God doesn’t have to “reach in” to touch things and be there with people. ALL areas are collapsed down into one, so all points at all times are immediately available to God.

There is the problem with ‘finite’, the idea that the universe has a ‘shape’, and the issue of our knowledge - or lack of it - of the material laws elsewhere in the multiverse or even in other parts of our own expanding universe.

This still leaves us with God transcendent it seems to me - out there, cold and lonely. Does it speak about the One we depend on? Maybe that’s OK out there for some of us. At one point I would have ‘located’ God as you have done, but I have moved away from that understanding of the Mystery, even if, as you point out, it seems to satisfy the conditionalities of the Church.

What you have given so coherently is also perhaps partially a theory of the *existence *of God, appropriate for scientists who demand observable data (but, note, who also insist that ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ and that a theory should not be completely rubbished because some of the data are imperfect, as that is always the case).

(Thanks for not going into the matter of miracles: I have issues there, and that is indeed another whole set of considerations.)

In Christ

 

[Lisdogan]

I am amazed. This is one of the significant historical and current issues in Christian theology including theological anthropology, Christology etc: the relationship between man and God in terms of energies and essence.

Lacking responses to my purposefully straightforward question, I scrounged through the internet last night and came up with statements from St John of the Cross and Ste Therese d’Avila to Rahner - and clearly more to come.

So perhaps I should have asked the question differently. Is God a presence, being and/or power? Where is He (I would rather use a neutral symbol for G-D) found - aside from the presence of HS Paraclete? Is He a Sublime Being separate from ourselves?

What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 1 Corinthians 6

*We are God and God does not exist outside of ourselves. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. *

To understand the nature of this union, one should first know that God sustains every soul and dwells in it substantially, even though it may be of the greatest sinner in the world. This union between God and creatures always exists. By it He conserves their being so that if the union should end, they would be immediately annihilated and cease to exist. St John of the Cross

*Though the soul be always in the high estate of marriage since God has placed it there, nevertheless, actual union in all its powers is not continuous, though the substantial union is. In this substantial union the powers of the soul are most frequently in union, and drink of His cellar, the understanding by knowledge, the will by love, etc. We are not therefore to suppose that the soul, when saying it went out, has ceased from its substantial or essential union with God, but only from the union of its faculties, which is not, and cannot be, permanent in this life.’ * Ste Therese d’Avila

St. John of the Cross explains wherein union of love with God consists. It is not a question of the substantial union that always exists between God and everything created and by means of which He is preserving their being. That kind of union is natural and can never be lacking in any creature, not even the greatest sinner. The union of love, however, is supernatural and only takes place in souls “when there is produced that likeness that comes from love,” that is, in souls that are in the state of grace. Oblates of the Last Martyrdom

… in view of the fact that man is endowed by grace not only with something created but with God himself etc, Karl Rahner

Is it possible therefore to say:

1. God created me and therefore I am substantially united with him (St John of the Cross)
2. I am a child of God – and in the same way as my own children are infused with my flesh and blood, pervaded by my being, so I am infused with the Being of God (analogy)
3. Each person is created a daily ‘myself’, but has the potential to achieve a higher order of Being as Self by seeking closer (spiritual mystical) union with God.
4. God is omnipresent: therefore His Being pervades mine and I am of Him and in Him, as He is in me?

Anthropomorphisation of God has mislead many Christians into a false sense of man’s relationship to Him. It has put Him ‘out there’ somewhere, separate from myself and my potential Self, when He is actually in substantial and spiritual union with me. We are one.

In Christ,

 

[theMutant]

Is it possible therefore to say:

1. God created me and therefore I am substantially united with him (St John of the Cross)
2. I am a child of God – and in the same way as my own children are infused with my flesh and blood, pervaded by my being, so I am infused with the Being of God (analogy)
3. Each person is created a daily ‘myself’, but has the potential to achieve a higher order of Being as Self by seeking closer (spiritual mystical) union with God.
4. God is omnipresent: therefore His Being pervades mine and I am of Him and in Him, as He is in me?

Anthropomorphisation of God has mislead many Christians into a false sense of man’s relationship to Him. It has put Him ‘out there’ somewhere, separate from myself and my potential Self, when He is actually in substantial and spiritual union with me. We are one.

In Christ,

1: I would have to see the statement in context to know what St. John of the Cross was intending. God created us and our continued existence is only possible through his deliberate will. In that sense, every thing in creation is substantially united to him - because it cannot exist without him. However, in the spiritual sense, I am only united to God according to how closely I choose to live my life according to his teachings.

2: I am only an adopted child of God and that is by Grace and only through the merits of Christ. I am a child of Adam, who sinned and thereby corrupted human nature; a nature I inherited from him.

3: Each person is unique and his soul is created at the moment of conception by a special act of God. We are at our highest order of being (body and soul) and, although we will temporarily lose that order through death, we will have that being throughout eternity after the resurrection. We will remain uniquely ourselves (body and soul) for all time. We achieve greater spiritual union with God by working against our fallen nature to conform ourselves to what he has revealed to us. This union is not a blending (we do not become one in being with him), it is a conformity.

4: God is omnipresence, omniscient, and omnipotent, and eternal. We, on the other hand, have limitations as far as presence, knowledge, power, and existence. Therefore, to say that “God is in us and we are in him,” demonstrates nothing.

Only the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Ghost is God. They are only one God. Yet the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son.

We are distinct and unique. We are no more God than we are each other. Otherwise, (based on all of the different and contradictory things God “says” about himself through us) we would have to conclude that God is completely insane.

 

[Lisdogan]

theMutant:

1: I would have to see the statement in context to know what St. John of the Cross was intending.

The quotation comes from The Ascent of Mount Carmel at St John of the Cross Ascent of Mount Carmel
books.google.co.za/books?id=2D3dOcBlbs8C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=union+with+God&source=bl&ots=jVU8FwhpVZ&sig=HJ_RY_zuZiB8BevWhE6M1oe660o&hl=en&ei=xnKqScvMLcTAnQey87jVDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA88,M1

God created us and our continued existence is only possible through his deliberate will. In that sense, every thing in creation is substantially united to him - because it cannot exist without him. However, in the spiritual sense, I am only united to God according to how closely I choose to live my life according to his teachings.

Exactly. St John of the Cross and I seem to agree with you.

2: I am only an adopted child of God and that is by Grace and only through the merits of Christ. I am a child of Adam, who sinned and thereby corrupted human nature; a nature I inherited from him.

If God created you, and you are in substantial if not spiritual union with Him, how can you believe you are adopted (I assume this is Church doctrine)? The monogenetic theory of original sin does not sit well with those who believe that the person is a creature of God, and by the free will infused in each individual, has the capacity to throw off many or even most material considerations, sin, distraction and outcomes, to reach a detachment and higher consciousness of the relationship betweeen Self and God. Different people are able to throw off material culture more easily than others.

3: Each person is unique and his soul is created at the moment of conception by a special act of God. We are at our highest order of being (body and soul) and, although we will temporarily lose that order through death, we will have that being throughout eternity after the resurrection. We will remain uniquely ourselves (body and soul) for all time. We achieve greater spiritual union with God by working against our fallen nature to conform ourselves to what he has revealed to us. This union is not a blending (we do not become one in being with him), it is a conformity.

I would agree with this statement at base, although there seem to be, among theologians and philosophers inevitable discrepancies about the condition of our individuality after death (see Rahner’s Encyclopedia of Theology for example).

4: God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent, and eternal. We, on the other hand, have limitations as far as presence, knowledge, power, and existence. Therefore, to say that “God is in us and we are in him,” demonstrates nothing.

(1) If God is omnipresent, He is in us. (2) We are His creatures ne? How else did I get here? (3) He is not ‘in’ me. I am ‘of’ Him, His child, as it were.

But go into greater detail about why you perceive that our limitations wrt God suggest that the common aphorism (God in us… etc) ‘demonstrates nothing’?

Only the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Ghost is God. They are only one God. Yet the Father is not the Son or the Holy Ghost. The Son is not the Father or the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost is not the Father or the Son.

No problem.

We are distinct and unique. We are no more God than we are each other. Otherwise, (based on all of the different and contradictory things God “says” about himself through us) we would have to conclude that God is completely insane.

Just as those who claim to be G-d are regularly locked up.

What G-d says is an interpretation of what an anthropomorphised godhead would have said in a given situation. Did G-d speak? Are the Scriptures literal or metaphoric? (This is a whole other kettle of fish of course.)

I think there is a mix-up here. Of course we are all distinct and unique, as between people, leaves, water, laws of gravity and relativity, dinosaurs and fish. All are creatures of ‘G-d’. (Any Christian would make this assumption I believe - I am not a Creationist.) The fact that we are creatures of God, that we are of G-d, does not make us God (although that has been argued).

It is possible to say, perhaps, that He is the I Am That I Am, and that i am that i am, because I am a unique individual and there is none other like me. However, the history of the concept again and again cautions against the idea that because of our substantial and occasionally mystical/spiritual union with God, we are therefore G-ds.

But it is also said again and again that we should not look for ‘God out there’ or even ‘God within’. We are in fact one and the same as God, but on an infinitely minute scale. (This is perhaps an extension of the idea (among Quakers and others) that each individual has a spark of the divine and all are therefore equal.)

Can we not say: ‘We are of God and God does not exist outside of ourselves/outside of our comprehension of Him and our provenance. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.’? Can we say simply (!) that I am of God and He is not out there or here in my heart - He is myself, and ultimately or potentially my Self?

I know this is quite squirrely, but I cannot be satisfied with an anthropomorphic godhead, I am absolutely not convinced of the Genesis story of the origin of sin (original sin is also an issue), and when I try to ‘locate’ my G-d, I can find Him only in myself - for He is the omnipotent, First Cause. This all probably makes me not Catholic, perhaps not even Christian! Nevertheless I take heart from my reading into the issues that there remain many theological theories still to be propounded.

In Christ,

 

[promethius]

Let me know the name of the heresy if you have it:

Pantheism

I have never heard a universe described as finite. As far as our tiny minds can figure, our universe is expanding faster than anticipated.

these two sentences contradict. An infinite universe CANNOT expand. Whenever you hear scientists refering to expansion of the universe it is because they are referencing the understood fact that our universe (including it’s dimensions and laws) is finite.

Scientists now also posit that the lack of fit between Newtonian physics and Einstein’s laws of relativity suggest the existence of an eternal and infinite number of eternal and infinite universes: an infinite multiverse.

what lack of fit? Einstein’s relativistic equations apply on a quantum and relativistic scale. As you move the system out of quantum and towards the general scale, the laws of Einstein actually MATCH Newton’s laws.

There is the question about what our universe is expanding into - and that’s where the [empty space] comes in ne?

Correct. Whatever the universe is expanding into is inherently different from our universe. It may be that another universe lies right beyond ours… but then we have a boundary problem. If the dimensions change, what can we say is really “between” them? Is there a gap there? How do you have a gap if no physical dimensions exist? In other words, outside the universe, Science is just guess work.

I have to disagree with the basic premise of ‘finite’

I’m just going off of the same understanding websters does…

Finite
Fi"nite, a. [L. finitus, p. p. of finire. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Finish”]Finish, and cf. Fine, a.] Having a limit; limited in quantity, degree, or capacity; bounded; – opposed to infinite; as, finite number; finite existence; a finite being; a finite mind; finite duration.

So we may be interested; we might be able to theorise in a fantasy kind of way; but we cannot know the unknowable because our brains are inadequately evolved - or we are so far too stupid and too technically-challenged.

actually, we cannot EVER know the “unknowable” because all our science and logical thought are based on the preset standard of OUR physical law. No amount of technical developement will get us beyond our physical law. Even if we COULD send something outside the universe, there’d be no way to reliably bring it back because we’d have no guaruntee that the same laws of operation would apply. Distance also loses meaning in absense of OUR physical dimensions, so what, in effect, would we send them TO?

What exists outside of the universe will ALWAYS be guesswork.

That means however that we cannot accuratetly posit from the little evidence we do have either (1) that our universe is finite

except that this is considered scientific fact. Even YOU recognize that the universe is expanding, so we already know from that statement alone that it is finite.

(2) that there is an outside outside the universe (finite or not - and the idea of [empty space] is not a satisfactory conclusion for scientists)

correct in the first half. “empty space” is actually fully acceptable to some scientists. Any answer at all, though is always going to be theory and not realistically verifiable. Any scientist who tells you they can determine that anything does or does not exist outside of the universe is lying and should have their degree (if it exists at all) taken away from them.

(3) that there are no laws or dimensions ‘out there’ where we cannot go body or mind. (Not only laws and dimensions are at stake, but the foundations for creation of life - absent, present or different - chemicals, gases, formations, and as you say, gravity etc)

I didn’t say that there are no laws or dimensions, but rather that as a minimum those laws and dimensions are different from ours. The existence of a region of NO law or dimensions is along the boundary region. Then again, like i said, how do you define a boundary with no dimensions to measure it with?

I have had this image of ‘God’ sort of ‘floating’ in the empty space outside out expanding universe, First Cause, Unborn, Beginningless, Uncreated and Endless.

that would be good, but if we’re truly talking “empty space” as in a region which is infinite and not bound by ANY laws or dimensions, then the very idea of “floating” loses meaning.

So, if I get you, He is in an infinity (a ‘present’) that surrounds our finite universe or universes? That leaves me, the worshipper, tumbling around in a very dark, empty and cold space if I try to get to Him. So let’s go on to the God immanent, the nearby one we pray to.

No, you missed the point about the collapse due to loss of dimensions. There is no such thing as “surrounding” if there are no dimensions. There is no such thing as a pocket from outside the universe. In other words, the universe only appears in 3D to US because we are inside it where the 3 physical dimensions apply. From outside the universe and with NO dimensional bounds, the entire universe would be a mere point of no dimensions. In other words, the God outside the universe is the God immanent, nearby to EVERY point in the universe because to a zero dimension or infinite reference ALL points in the universe are collapsed.

What you have given so coherently is also perhaps partially a theory of the *existence *of God, appropriate for scientists

Agreed. But I hold my degree in physics, so I tend to go for the augustinian “truth cannot conflict with truth” stance that science and religion have to be compatible or one is incorrectly interpreted

 

[Lisdogan]

What exists outside of the universe will ALWAYS be guesswork.

No, you missed the point about the collapse due to loss of dimensions. There is no such thing as “surrounding” if there are no dimensions. There is no such thing as a pocket from outside the universe. In other words, the universe only appears in 3D to US because we are inside it where the 3 physical dimensions apply. From outside the universe and with NO dimensional bounds, the entire universe would be a mere point of no dimensions. In other words, the God outside the universe is the God immanent, nearby to EVERY point in the universe because to a zero dimension or infinite reference ALL points in the universe are collapsed.

Agreed. But I hold my degree in physics, so I tend to go for the augustinian “truth cannot conflict with truth” stance that science and religion have to be compatible or one is incorrectly interpreted

Re St Augustine: ‘The discovery came in a moment of intellectual vision in which Augustine glimpsed and thereby came at last to understand the divine nature. “At that moment,” he tells us, “I saw [God’s] ‘invisible nature understood through the things that are made’ [Romans 1.20]” (Conf. 7.17.23)’ .
cco.cambridge.org/extract?id=ccol0521650186_CCOL0521650186A008

OK. My eyes cannot see any more; my brain is fried; I am becoming more and more cynical.

I did accept your 3D/non3D ‘point’ because I understand what you are saying, and think it applicable in certain systematic theories. I am grateful for your scientific take on all this theological conjecture. One must ask of course what your ultimate answer to the original question would be - or are you an agnostic, atheist, moral non-Christian, secular moralist, non-theist etc etc etc?

This is the problem. My degree in history and philosophy, and recent so-called ‘theological’ peregrinations indicate that there are n theories out there (devised over millennia), and more to be considered here. I have gone through The Idea of God. Divine Ground of Being, anthropomorphism, ‘divinity’ and ‘duality’, Divine Operation, Paul Tillich, more of Rahner, the Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality, and the New Advent on-line Catholic Encyc. and been led down more sidebars than I care to name.

Clearly this thread should not have started as a simple question - especially since by implication it also involves perceptions by Christians of Eastern belief systems, and the conceptions of Eastern belief systems of the divine or supreme being - inter alia.

I think the best line I have found so far is in the Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality: Only with the cosmological schemes of the German Idealists at the beinning of the 19th century and with the evolutionary thinking of Henri Bergson and AN Whitehead in this century have theologians begun to question the traditional immutability of God and to set forth schemes whereby God can !!!???] be more deeply involved in nature and in human history.

I have an idea: I shall create a theory so God can… Perhaps this is an unfair interpretation of the statement.

I conclude with Tillich by preference: Not only are the universal essences – tree-hood, redness, etc. – in the eternal mind, but also the essences of the individuals. Let me make this clear by saying that in God is the form of each of us, independent of the changes in every moment of our life, that form which a great painter would see and express in his picture of us. All this is in the eternal mind, in the eternal spirit or nous.

In Christ, and with thanks

 

[theMutant]

First, I want to point out that the views of any theologian, an an amature like myself, a professional, or even one who has been declared a saint by the Church, is subject to the magisterium and not the other way around. All Catholic theologians must consider their views as subordinate to the magisterium. Any time our arguments contradict Catholic doctrine - we are simply wrong.

If God created you, and you are in substantial if not spiritual union with Him, how can you believe you are adopted (I assume this is Church doctrine)?

That is Catholic doctrine. Only the Son is “generated” of the Father. We are created, not generated. We are children by adoption only and only because that is the desire of God Himself.

The monogenetic theory of original sin does not sit well with those who believe that the person is a creature of God, and by the free will infused in each individual, has the capacity to throw off many or even most material considerations, sin, distraction and outcomes, to reach a detachment and higher consciousness of the relationship betweeen Self and God. Different people are able to throw off material culture more easily than others.

I guess I need a better understanding of what is meant by the term “monogenetic.” As far as I am concerned, the fact that different people have different capacities to throw off material culture doesn’t impact what I previously said.

there seem to be, among theologians and philosophers inevitable discrepancies about the condition of our individuality after death (see Rahner’s Encyclopedia of Theology for example).

Confusion among theologians does not concern me on this issue, because the doctrine of the Resurrection is clear. We will each be resurrected and we will have our own unique bodies back (although in a different state due to the shift from temporal to eternal states of being). The souls individuality is assured because, otherwise, our individual judgment would not be possible.

But go into greater detail about why you perceive that our limitations wrt God suggest that the common aphorism (God in us… etc) ‘demonstrates nothing’?

I say it demonstrates nothing because it is too ambiguous. “God is in me.” I believe this. Some take it to mean that I am divine. I do not. “I am in God.” I believe this. Some take it to mean that I am “part of” God. I do not.

Just as those who claim to be G-d are regularly locked up.

No, I think you might not have understood me. I am not talking about those who claim to be, or even speak for, God. I am discussing the idea that “I am God” or that “we are each God.” Another phrase I have heard for this is that we are each God expressing himself through us. That cannot be, unless God Himself is insane, by reason of the many, absolutely contradictory things that God has “said” about himself through us. For example: There is only one vs. There are many vs. Everything is God. You don’t seem to be taking this tack, though. I only bring it up because the phrase you used has been used in this way.

What G-d says is an interpretation of what an anthropomorphised godhead would have said in a given situation. Did G-d speak? Are the Scriptures literal or metaphoric? (This is a whole other kettle of fish of course.)

What God has said is precisely what God has said. God did, indeed, speak. Scriptures are written in the language of the time in which they were given are are precisely and only what God wanted to be written. However, they were written using the language contemporary to the writer. The issue of interpretation is not that of the writer, it is of the reader (us). It is we who have lost the sense of the language of the writer; the writer was writing under inspiration and was not capable of making an error. This is why we have the magisterium. We rely on the deposit of the faith to make sure any contemporary interpretation we may attempt is consistent with the Faith handed down.

 

[theMutant]

(Continued from post #11)

I think there is a mix-up here. Of course we are all distinct and unique, as between people, leaves, water, laws of gravity and relativity, dinosaurs and fish. All are creatures of ‘G-d’. (Any Christian would make this assumption I believe - I am not a Creationist.) The fact that we are creatures of God, that we are of G-d, does not make us God (although that has been argued).

There are those who would argue that we are God and who use the phrase “We are God” in that sense.

But it is also said again and again that we should not look for ‘God out there’ or even ‘God within’. We are in fact one and the same as God, but on an infinitely minute scale. (This is perhaps an extension of the idea (among Quakers and others) that each individual has a spark of the divine and all are therefore equal.)

We do have the spark of the divine within us, but it is only part of us by gift and not by nature. We are not one and the same as God because we are finite. We must understand that, when we try to describe God, we are limited by our own finite mentality and language. Jesus said that he and the Father were one, yet he stated that he came to do the Father’s will and not his own. This is an example of Mystery - in the Catholic sense; something we will not be able to understand until the next life; and even then our understanding could be limited. We know that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all infinite, yet we know that there is some level of distinction between them. However, if there is distinction between them, how can they be infinite? If they are infinite, how can they be distinct? If there are three, how can they all be just one God? Yet, the fact that God is infinite means there can only be one God. These are Mysteries. I have dificulty understanding these mysteries because I am not God. I don’t doubt them because they have been revealed. It is our very uniqueness that demonstrates that we are not one and the same as God. I am not you and you are not me, but we are not one being. Because we will never be one being, we will never be God - it is not within the scope of our potential. In fact, the very idea of being on a “minute scale” precludes us from being one and the same as God.

Can we not say: ‘We are of God and God does not exist outside of ourselves/outside of our comprehension of Him and our provenance. He is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent.’? Can we say simply (!) that I am of God and He is not out there or here in my heart - He is myself, and ultimately or potentially my Self?

No. God is not myself. God may be both within and without me and my very existence relies on his conscience determination that I continue to exist, but he is not me. He is not my Self. That’s where the formula falls apart.

I know this is quite squirrely, but I cannot be satisfied with an anthropomorphic godhead, I am absolutely not convinced of the Genesis story of the origin of sin (original sin is also an issue), and when I try to ‘locate’ my G-d, I can find Him only in myself - for He is the omnipotent, First Cause. This all probably makes me not Catholic, perhaps not even Christian! Nevertheless I take heart from my reading into the issues that there remain many theological theories still to be propounded.

Oh well. At least you are honest.

God bless you, and I hope you work though this.

 

[mlchance]

God is spirit. He has no width, length, or depth. He isn’t located anywhere.

That said, I think I’m becoming increasingly aware of God (or, more accurately, the image of God) in others while at the same time not noticing the same in me. I’m not sure if this should be disturbing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[theMutant]

God is spirit. He has no width, length, or depth. He isn’t located anywhere.

That said, I think I’m becoming increasingly aware of God (or, more accurately, the image of God) in others while at the same time not noticing the same in me. I’m not sure if this should be disturbing.

– Mark L. Chance.

I would say that is great.

 

[Lisdogan]

God is spirit. He has no width, length, or depth. He isn’t located anywhere.

That said, I think I’m becoming increasingly aware of God (or, more accurately, the image of God) in others while at the same time not noticing the same in me. I’m not sure if this should be disturbing.

– Mark L. Chance.

I often have the same sense - you are not alone! And in fact I find it rather scarey altogether. Partly it is because I can never really settle down with Jesus of Nazareth or God, our God of Love, for a good chat and a cup of tea, or a good big sob, or a hymn of praise. It is all too overwhelming sometimes - this God in this Universe, in this Infinity, in this dark tumbling mass without space, time or dimension, which is absolutely unknowable. Others don’t seem to find it so. Perhaps I am just a chicken at heart.

Or I wonder if it is because, if I can say I am ‘of’ God - that is that I am in substantial or essential union with Him - I am moving upwards along a scale to some kind of more effective spirituality/spiritual union, and therefore am not on the same wavelength as others. Our hearts and minds take us places we are afraid of.

Or of course it may be that the others are moving faster than you and me up the scale of union toward a closer spiritual understanding of/union with G-d.

In Christ,

 

[mlchance]

Or of course it may be that the others are moving faster than you and me up the scale of union toward a closer spiritual understanding of/union with G-d.

I don’t know about you, but I have no doubt that’s true for me. That’s a good thing, I think. I’ve got more saintly people backing me up, walking ahead of me so to speak to show me the way.

That’s got to be a good thing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[nuntym]

How about a part of St. Patrick’s beautiful prayer called “St. Patrick’s Breastplate”?

Christ, protect me today
Against every poison, against burning,
Against drowning, against death-wound,
That I may receive abundant reward.

Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in the fort, *
Christ in the chariot seat, *
Christ in the poop. *

Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.***

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

As I mature, I get different feelings and ideas about where God ‘is’ when I commune with Him through prayer, meditation, silence, music. Sometimes He seems very near, sometimes very far: His ‘location’ as a Being remains a mystery.

I think we can assume, very crudely, that the Holy Spirit is around us at all times. We are told that Christ is with His Father (seated at the right hand).

We believe that God Creator is transcendent and omnipresent, everywhere. But God immanent, the one who loves us and whom we love, to whom we go in prayer: where is He?

There are perhaps a number of possibiities:

(1) He is infused in my flesh and bones, He pervades my very being, as I am His creation: He and I are one;
(2) He is ‘in my heart’;
(3) He is in the space I have emptied for Him, inside my spirit (we must empty ourselves to make a place for the Lord);
(4) He is beside me, near me, in my vicinity;
(5) He is experienced only through the presence of the Holy Spirit all around me;
(6) He is somewhere in the sky above;
(7) He is above the sky, in heaven (where is that?);
(8) He is in the galaxy somewhere, in the universe, in the multiverse - somewhere in ‘space’;
(9) He is in the [empty space] outside universal infinity;
(10) He is somewhere else - other.

Where do you ‘locate’ God? I keep on changing, but think that other people must have a fixed ‘location’ in their mind where they will find God when they want to communicate with Him or be with Him.

Can you help?

In Christ,

Wrong question. What is the length of green or the shape of blue ? Wrong questions. As is, how tall is six ?​

God is where God is. Place is “in” God, not God “in” place.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Let me know the name of the heresy if you have it: I seem to be holding onto a number of them at the moment!

Anthropomorphism.​