Omipresence Means Something

It makes me wonder when people say we’re not worthy to be in the presence of God. Is God not everywhere? And since God must be everywhere, then exactly what are we saying? If God chose to have nothing to do with me, it’d be no different than if I chose to have nothing to do with God. In other words, neither is possible, or, the one making that choice has an ego. If God has an ego, then God cannot love completely. Since we say God does, he wouldn’t make such a choice, at least as we can tell. But if God is like a magnet and repulsed by things which are not Himself or opposed, then there’s nothing God can do, or us, and it would be odd to think God would go to all the trouble to create something that would repulse Himself. If it’s that He’s​ repulsed by evil, then we have to contend with Him being its author as well.

It remains then that the existence of evil in the world either makes God completely loving in mandating we remedy evil in the world, or evil Himself because he was careless in the means to His goals.

In either case, the existence of God, the existence of evil, and the idea that God cares about creation necessarily entail to an inherent worth that cannot be undone, even by those proclaiming we’re not worthy of God’s attention at all; reality begs to differ.

Just a thought.

Tagged ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: