Once upon a time I asked amongst scarce replies. . .

Could not the being in which believers call god manifest the truth of itself in contextually relevant ways to all people at all time?

Is it not ironic that an "omnipresent" god according to some faiths can only be truthfully conveyed via one context from a particular period?

emöfine2: Once upon a time I asked amongst scarce replies. . .

Could not the being in which believers call god manifest itself in contextually relevant ways to all people at all time?

Is it not ironic that an "omnipresent" god according to some faiths can only be truthfully conveyed via one context from a particular period?

This is getting old.

If you christians can not logically defend your religion, why not just come out and say that your religion is false? Isnt that better than ignoring questions that you know will debunk your faith?

erm...logicboy my intention for asking this question or any other kinds of question here is not to “debunk” anyone’s faith. Faith is largely personal and that to me is sacrosanct.
However questioning certain aspects of a particular belief-system (at least in my own regards) is to understand what inspires some believers inclination towards their faith or yes even to draw a believer’s attention to what one may perceive as an inconsistency that thus may need explaining.

The problem here being that most of the questions asked, including this one are strawmen arguments.even hardened Atheis Philosphers would not take serious many of the questions asked here.

It is all lies, emofine. I have asked this same question since i was a kid and i concluded that the claim of omnipresence is all bogus shyte. Why do i, a yoruba person, have to read jewish mythology to get close to an omnipresent God? That was the question i kept asking myself back in the days.

If this god i was reading about in this book is truly omnipresent, then why the Bleep do i have to read about him in a jewish scripture first before knowing him?. Some very smart people are just trying to play on my intelligence was my conclusion. If this god was omnipresent, then i would've known him without the bible.

emöfine2: Once upon a time I asked amongst scarce replies. . .

Could not the being in which believers call god manifest the truth of itself in contextually relevant ways to all people at all time?

Is it not ironic that an "omnipresent" god according to some faiths can only be truthfully conveyed via one context from a particular period?

emöfine2: erm...logicboy my intention for asking this question or any other kinds of question here is not to “debunk” anyone’s faith. Faith is largely personal and that to me is sacrosanct.
However questioning certain aspects of a particular belief-system (at least in my own regards) is to understand what inspires some believers inclination towards their faith or yes even to draw a believer’s attention to what one may perceive as an inconsistency that thus may need explaining.

I cant see your intention. Your question has been asked by many atheists and avoided by many christians/mulsims/religous peopele

AlvinPlantinga: The problem here being that most of the questions asked, including this one are strawmen arguments.even hardened Atheis Philosphers would not take serious many of the questions asked here.

Its quite a thoughtful question. An omnipresent being like God will have impression of that essence in every culture and thought

AlvinPlantinga: The problem here being that most of the questions asked, including this one are strawmen arguments.even hardened Atheis Philosphers would not take serious many of the questions asked here.

I agree with regards to some questions posed here (even some of the questions I asked in the past were questionable) but that may depend on the motives for asking a question.

As regards to this particular question being a “strawman argument”...well I guess that largely depends on how one interprets the question. All text is open to interpretation after all (even “holy” ones).

But let me concede that “truth” cannot be presented to everyone at all time just like in our world there are particular topics or revelations that some are not capable of comprehending particularly at a tender age and thus may have to wait for maturity or of a required age to understand. But when I wrote “all people at all time” I simply meant everyone or people from everywhere.

***

So in the 15th century is when the truth of an omnipresent god was finally revealed to Sub Sahara Africa? - Even earlier if we consider Islam in West Africa...What about South America and the likes? (Were we actually the least of god's priority?)

So an omnipresent being could not have been revealed without a particular medium being solely adopted? Without a particular group of people being exclusively privy to the "truth"?

If all living things and unexplainable phenomenon alludes to god then there are many revelations of god. If there are many revelations and evidence of god (which I have not denied) then there are various contexts in which the “truth” could be captured and not just as a literary article.
If god is omnipresent, how can this all enveloping presence be captured particularly in one medium or context alone at a particular period that most definitely favours a particular group of people?

So how do we know for sure that the various articles that other societies possessed were not a legitimate pointer to god in which in our various communities at one time could only be interpreted and comprehended within the context of one’s society?

The Kunama and the Shona people to name but a few believed in the concept of one god before the arrival of the missionaries. So if there is truly one god how did the revelation of “one god” become revealed to these people? A lucky guess? Coincidence? Because god could not have revealed the truth of itself to Africans and other “ethnic minorities” without a translator abi?

Furthermore there were particular groups on the continent that claim their own traditional belief system had striking similarities with certain religions of the Abrahamic faiths. Even most or all of the “ten commandments” was a blueprint in certain societies before any of the Holy Scriptures were published.

If we are to accept an omnipresent god in the parcel of religion, can religion be divorced from its origin/culture?
Can an omnipresent god not be mapped out into all cultures?

“strawman argument”? Not at all but my "argument" is certainly for all men of different creeds and backgrounds.

What is the meaning of omnipresent? Also can you ask your question in english, emofine?

Jenwitemi: It is all lies, emofine. I have asked this same question since i was a kid and i concluded that the claim of omnipresence is all bogus shyte. Why do i, a yoruba person, have to read jewish mythology to get close to an omnipresent God? That was the question i kept asking myself back in the days.

If this god i was reading about in this book is truly omnipresent, then why the Bleep do i have to read about him in a jewish scripture first before knowing him?. Some very smart people are just trying to play on my intelligence was my conclusion. If this god was omnipresent, then i would've known him without the bible.

I never could quite grasp it myself . How does it seem feasible and unquestionable that I as an African in order to connect to god - an omnipresent one at that – will have to go through the Persona of a Jewish rabbi that is far removed from me in so many ways?

Is it possible that an omnipresent god could not have revealed the truth of itself to any society or on any continent for a huge length of time?

We all have differing ways of collecting and relaying information thus could not an omnipresent god be conveyed or reflected in various contextual forms according to the comprehension of particular societies/individuals?

The weird irony is, claiming to be the sole owners of the truth and claiming that the truth of god has been revealed through a specific context alone actually reduces an omnipresent being into a static entity.

Kay 17: An omnipresent being like God will have impression of that essence in every culture and thought

+1

Omnipresence simply means the ability to be present in every culture throughout the globe all at the same time. That would have eliminated the need for missionaries, crusades and jihads. But since the missionaries, crusades and jihads were needed to "spread" this god all over the planet, it completely removed this characteristic of omnipresence from the deity in question.

Image123: What is the meaning of omnipresent?

Jenwitemi: Omnipresence simply means the ability to be present in every culture throughout the globe all at the same time. That would have eliminated the need for missionaries, crusades and jihads. But since the missionaries, crusades and jihads were needed to "spread" this god all over the planet, it completely removed this characteristic of omnipresence from the deity in question.

Image123: Also can you ask your question in english, emofine?

How can one context solely be employed to reveal the truth of an omnipresent being? Is that oyinbo enough for you?

It is an interesting question.
If there is indeed an omnipresent intelligence, as all thiests believe, then surely, religion, especially the custodial judeo-christian religions, would constitute a great contradiction and insult to such an omnipresent god.

Self invalidation.

Honestly, the more you examine all these faiths from Judaism, to Christianity to Islam etc, the better convinced you become that the idea of God's existence is entirely man-made and that there is indeed no God sitting on a proverbial throne anywhere.

Infact, the world would be a better place without religion.

bayooooooo: Honestly, the more you examine all these faiths from Judaism, to Christianity to Islam etc, the better convinced you become that the idea of God's existence is entirely man-made and that there is indeed no God sitting on a proverbial throne anywhere.

I can accept that there are elements of truth within all belief systems but as to which extent these truths begin, end or have been borrowed is another question entirely.

But I don’t appreciate the fact that some belief systems should be given greater validity solely based on their geography or population because if there is an omnipresent god then such being’s essence would have or should have pervaded all time and societal barriers and be interpreted by various cultures, individuals and periods in various contextually relevant ways so if people from all over the world was privy to at least fractions of the “truth” then all articles and knowledge of a deity in one’s immediate society should pose as a piece of puzzle to a global jigsaw and not marginalized for failing to belong to the club of Abrahamic religions.

Infact, the world would be a better place without religion.

Or maybe the world would be better without particular religions relegating other belief systems. Honestly I doubt the world would be a stimulating environment if the whole global population belonged to a specific religion.

emöfine2:





How can one context solely be employed to reveal the truth of an omnipresent being? Is that oyinbo enough for you?

i wonder where you and jemwit got that definition.
God uses the same oxygen, the same water, the same fire to sustain the whole earth/humanity. i don't see it so odd that He chooses to reveal Himself in one same context to everybody. It's the context of faith in the only true God.

Image123:
i wonder where you and jemwit got that definition.
God uses the same oxygen, the same water, the same fire to sustain the whole earth/humanity. i don't see it so odd that He chooses to reveal Himself in one same context to everybody. It's the context of faith in the only true God.

Ignorance

1) You dont get the same water around the world. If you live near mountains, your drinking water will naturally have more minerals in it compared to living on an island.

2) You dont get the same oxygen around the world. People who live on mountainous terrains have less oxygen to live with. Many runners come from these places because they need less oxygen to run and get less tired.

3) Languages. Would God appear to a Chinese man and speak Hebrew? How does god relate to a blind man in the same context with a seeing one? Or a deaf and dumb?

^
i see you've been tailing me, you should understand context instead of arguing for joblessness sake. What i've said in other words is that all human beings breathe in oxygen, drink water, use fire for their sustenance. There's no special fire or water for each culture. Your no 3 is irrelevant.

On other thoughts, let me answer it i.e no 3. i know that will probably be your focus. God relates with all humans on the plane of faith. Faith is boundless, it's not subject to language or ethnicity. Just like love, a smile, a frown, fear. They're the same everywhere whether you're in Africa or Antartica.

Image123: ^
i see you've been tailing me, you should understand context instead of arguing for joblessness sake. What i've said in other words is that all human beings breathe in oxygen, drink water, use fire for their sustenance. There's no special fire or water for each culture. Your no 3 is irrelevant.

Yes, you're right I misunderstood your context. I stand corrected.

However, it still doesnt change the fact that one context can not solely convey an omnipotent God. That is the main point of number 3. It is not irrelevant. You just avoid it because it challenges your faith and understanding. It is odd for God to appear in one context to all human beings since every human is different.

Image123: On other thoughts, let me answer it i.e no 3. i know that will probably be your focus. God relates with all humans on the plane of faith. Faith is boundless, it's not subject to language or ethnicity. Just like love, a smile, a frown, fear. They're the same everywhere whether you're in Africa or Antartica.

A blind man can not see a smile, a frown or an expression of love. How does god appear to a person of such disabilities?

The ten commandments talk about ox and donkeys. Are there not many societies that dont have Oxen or donkeys? Faith can not be universal.A chines guy will draw Jesus chinese and a white man will draw Jesus as white.


Have you ever wondered why Jesus is painted white in Nigerian churches? British colonialism.

^
A blind person you've limited it to? Okay, i've settled the deaf and dumb right? A blind man can smile, frown and love. A blind man can have faith in God.
Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. He that cometh to God MUST believe.
That's the plane on which man operates, and God has given every man/human a measure of faith. It now depends on what you use yours for. Some hide theirs, some believe in wood and iron, some believe/put their faith in science, some in money, some in themselves, some on articles that say there is no God.

Image123: ^
Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. He that cometh to God MUST believe.

That's the problem. People like me say that there is no God and no need to please him.

Image123: ^
A blind person you've limited it to? Okay, i've settled the deaf and dumb right? A blind man can smile, frown and love. A blind man can have faith in God.
Without faith, it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God. He that cometh to God MUST believe.
That's the plane on which man operates, and God has given every man/human a measure of faith. It now depends on what you use yours for. Some hide theirs, some believe in wood and iron, some believe/put their faith in science, some in money, some in themselves, some on articles that say there is no God.

What is faith? To accept something that one does not understand, be it true or false?
Faith is subjective, do you agree? If so,faith can be described as a state of mind or a certain ecstatic prequency of the mind, similiar to say,a narcotic induced mind.Right?
That expalins a lot.
Then why do people of faith get all worked up when non-religious folks maintain that religious folks live in a world of delusions?
If one must have faith to feel or please god, then, by simple definition, one must tune one's mind into a delusional state in order to grasp and sustain faith.

What is so interesting is that most religious people on this forum, at one point or another, have admitted that faith is a subjective state of mind, .
I , and I'm sure, all athiests wholeheartedly AGREE.
The problem with religion, why it is so destructive and divisive, is when people are unable to seperate the self-induced delusions of faith with the realities of plural and diverse human interactions. If ones self induced faith can transform one into a peaceful, tolerant and law abiding cititen of a community, then everyone is better for it.
But as is most common,once a self-induced faith leaves the confines of ones mind(usually in an attempt to infect others), confusion and conflict inevitably ensue.
Therefore,looking back at human history and looking right now at Nigeria, it becomes very obvious that faith, no matter how blissful and ecstatic it might be to an individual, is usually very divisive and destructive to human civilisation.

plaetton: .
Therefore,looking back at human history and looking right now at Nigeria, it becomes very obvious that faith, no matter how blissful and ecstatic it might be to an individual, is usually very divisive and destructive to human civilisation.

This is truth that religious people hardly ever accept

Image123:
i wonder where you and jemwit got that definition.
God uses the same oxygen, the same water, the same fire to sustain the whole earth/humanity. i don't see it so odd that He chooses to reveal Himself in one same context to everybody. It's the context of faith in the only true God.

Really? Well I often wonder where the biblical god got the title “omnipresent” from when allegedly the revelation of such god was apparently exclusive and contained.

With all due respect, the truth of an omnipresent god being exclusively revealed in one context alone is difficult to fathom and accept unreservedly.

Is it fathomable that an omnipresent being apparently did not or could not reveal the truth of itself for centuries on particular continents?

Do you believe that at a particular period that people in the world had not an awareness of the “truth” before the bible and Jewish monotheism became epidemic?

The idea that the truth of an all present god had to be publicized before the world “he” apparently created and hovers around ironically shows a lack of faith in god. Confirming the truth of god is one thing but to suggest that a significant segment of the world knew nothing of such truth for centuries is rather inconsistent to the personality of the god that such individual/collective claims is “omnipresent” no matter how certain groups interpreted the truth according to the context of their surrounding.

Claiming to be the sole owners of the truth and that nobody else outside the Eastern window could have had any prior reckoning of the truth immediately annuls the characteristic of an “omnipresent” god.
Claiming that the truth of an “omnipresent” being was made manifest through one context that holds no relevance or impression to one’s greater core but for only a specific group actually marginalizes a huge fraction of the globe. My value is thus only based on my conformity unlike a Jew who is automatically relevant.

Really, could not the “infallible” truth have been locked into our essence than contained in one context that betrays partiality?

^
You speak too much grammar for a learner. Go and read Acts 17, ihope you learn something extra as regards your query.

@image123

She makes a valid inquiry. Christianity is not consistent with God's nature. An omnipresent being not only present in all places and at all times but in all minds. Every thought, religion is inherently capable of percieving this omnipresent truth. Just like the truth of existence, is confirmed by all cultures and peoples. You don't a find a country or tribe where they don't think they exist.