Why does God not show him/her/itself?

[lemex]

Originally Posted by davidsun

Nobody has 'seen' (in the literal visual-sense) 'love' either. Any who has spiritually experienced it, either 'in' her/himself or 'from' another, knows IT to be to real, however.

Who knows?

Sorry, can't agree. Don't we see when it's not present. Do we see when we don't see it if you know what I mean. Love is the single most important experience that one can have (experience) as well as (learning) not having. Karma! A lesson I will never forget.

[MHz045]

I met someone who hated God and was an empath.

As answer to your question, (from what I understand) he (it/whatever you call God) is so holy that it would kill us if you met God face to face. Moses went through this and he saw only his back. After coming down the mountain and after the encounter, Moses shined.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by lemex

Sorry, can't agree. Don't we see when it's not present. Do we see when we don't see it if you know what I mean. Love is the single most important experience that one can have (experience) as well as (learning) not having. Karma! A lesson I will never forget.

You evidently missed my point (or so I think), which is that we don't/can't visually (in the sense of photo-graph-ically) 'see' spiritual thangs - but that does not mean they aren't 'really' present.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Badcopyinc

Shivani... someone that questions others usually questions self.

How exactly does that work?

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by davidsun

...we don't/can't visually (in the sense of photo-graph-ically) 'see' spiritual thangs - but that does not mean they aren't 'really' present.

Speaking of THE Presence:

P.S. This doesn't apply to all 'fish', though:

[Shivani Devi]

My Higher Self just came up with an idea.

You want a picture of God eh? Okay then, I shall oblige:

https://goo.gl/images/tj9j1H

...and you can't say that this is NOT a picture of God, because you would have to know what God looks like to make that comparison.

All you CAN say, is "I am an atheist, so nothing you can do or say will ever convince me, so I am silly for asking for any proof in the first place". There...done.

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

My Higher Self just came up with an idea.

You want a picture of God eh? Okay then, I shall oblige:

https://goo.gl/images/tj9j1H

...and you can't say that this is NOT a picture of God, because you would have to know what God looks like to make that comparison.

All you CAN say, is "I am an atheist, so nothing you can do or say will ever convince me, so I am silly for asking for any proof in the first place". There...done.

This isn't my version of the picture of "God". "God" is but a picture and I think that ironically that's what this is all about and the picture is an excellent symbolism to use. What is the picture that might be seen. Actually it is more about experience. My picture of "God" would be inclusive, "God" would be in this picture, in every picture though invisible "God" would be placed above in the picture that mirrors all the terrible suffering that "God" looks down on, doing nothing. "God" is an observer. Of course "God" did not do anything... pun intended. The picture is more a whole picture when all this power "God" is said to have. How would "God" show itself, "God" could speak to the hearts of people. This is how I want "God" to show itself. What would that picture look like. I'm guessing this is the picture being talked about. So the question is should "God" itself be more hands on and take some responsibility for what it did. This would be any "God" seen of course. The picture include everything missing in the picture that has not been shown. If someone was planning to start a war let's say, wouldn't you secretly want "God" to get involved and stop it providing a change so as not to have that. Of course many such problems in the world already exist like this that "God" could talk through experience and could become involved instead of being on the side lines.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by lemex

This isn't my version of the picture of "God". "God" is but a picture and I think that ironically that's what this is all about and the picture is an excellent symbolism to use. What is the picture that might be seen. Actually it is more about experience. My picture of "God" would be inclusive, "God" would be in this picture, in every picture though invisible "God" would be placed above in the picture that mirrors all the terrible suffering that "God" looks down on, doing nothing. "God" is an observer. Of course "God" did not do anything... pun intended. The picture is more a whole picture when all this power "God" is said to have. How would "God" show itself, "God" could speak to the hearts of people. This is how I want "God" to show itself. What would that picture look like. I'm guessing this is the picture being talked about. So the question is should "God" itself be more hands on and take some responsibility for what it did. This would be any "God" seen of course. The picture include everything missing in the picture that has not been shown. If someone was planning to start a war let's say, wouldn't you secretly want "God" to get involved and stop it providing a change so as not to have that. Of course many such problems in the world already exist like this that "God" could talk through experience and could become involved instead of being on the side lines.

In that way, any picture of ANYTHING could represent God, but it would not BE God, which was the whole point I was trying to make.

I could have posted a picture of a chair, a pile of dog manure... basically anything and called it "God" and r6 wouldn't be able to refute it unless he, himself knew what God looked like and in that case, no other picture or image would suffice for him.

So, I chose the picture which represents what God "looks like" to ME, even though I fully realise that God is totally beyond all mental constructs and images...we only use these concepts as a "point of reference" or an "indicator" and everybody is unique in that regard, but nobody is right or wrong.

In Hinduism, any notion of God which can be conceptualized is called the SAGUNA BRAHMAN aspect, and this means "God with attributes" and these perceived attributes are basically infinite and so, it is up to the individual to choose one (called an Ishta Devata or "personal Divinity") to represent the formless aspect or that which is beyond all names, forms, perceptions and concepts called NIRGUNA BRAHMAN or the unattributed experience of the Absolute Reality which transcends the human mind, thought process and limited perceptions.

I have chosen Lord Shiva for that purpose, or He chose me... something like that.

[r6r6]

OMGod see link to images of God, take your pick Shivani.

Ask 100 people which is the image/picture of God and you will get at least 50 differrent answers, plus none of these are found in soup or kernal of corn.

Mom and dad spelled in reverse are still the same ergo a palindrome.

(MoM) or as Uni-V-erse{ finite occupied space }

DaD aka DaDaDaDaD or as /\/\/\/\/\/

i.e. focused aim-and-shoot ---)->----)->---)->----)-> whoosh whoosh whoosh Blam Blam Blam

Some fish and mammals leap out of the water. They have expanded awareness/consciousness.

Some humans have been exposed, via education, to broader knowledge base/set via technologies other humans have produced.

Some humans have been exposed to various states of consciousness via chemistry of childhood, puberty, ingestion of this or that etc.

Originally Posted by r6r6r

Humans via instruments of technology see parts our finite, occupied space Universe and assimilate an image of a part of our Universe ergo a part of God.

See link for image of brain neurons and cosmos filaments of clusters of galaxies and tho seeming voids between.

Occupied space parts of God/Universe come in many shapes, colors, spin, charges etc ex

trees Y
chromosomes y and X
worms ~~~~~
cars *|||*
planets O
planets with rings --O--
moons o
galaxies ( - )
sine-waves /\/\/\/\/

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by r6r6r

OMGod see link to images of God, take your pick Shivani.

Ask 100 people which is the image/picture of God and you will get at least 50 differrent answers, plus none of these are found in soup or kernal of corn.

Mom and dad spelled in reverse are still the same ergo a palindrome.

(MoM) or as Uni-V-erse

DaD aka DaDaDaDaD or as /\/\/\/\/\/

i.e. focused aim-and-shoot ---)->----)->---)->----)-> whoosh whoosh whoosh Blam Blam Blam

Some fish and mammals leap out of the water. They have expanded awareness/consciousness.

Some humans have been exposed, via education, to broader knowledge base/set via technologies other humans have produced.

Some humans have been exposed to various states of consciousness via chemistry of childhood, puberty, ingestion of this or that etc.

Yep and guess what? ALL of them are pictorial representations of the ONE transcendent reality (even Morgan Freeman) and you CAN "take your pick" and any ONE of them will lead you to the same place.

This is something that many human beings don't get and wars are started over it.

Please read my post above for a more detailed explanation. I COULD say that any one or ALL are God, but Shiva is the one who has stolen my heart, and so I knew that was the direction I had to go, and this is different for everyone.