Where and how do you seek God? Or are you an idol worshiper?

[Gnostic Bishop]

Where and how do you seek God? Or are you an idol worshiper?

There are so many Gods and Goddesses in forums today that these places begin to look as in the days of Babel. Two camps do seem to be forming though. Those who seek on the left and and those who have found on the right.

Which camp are you in?

If you seek God, where are you looking?

If you have found your God, please supply a name. Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Regards
DL

P.S. Gnosis is knowledge that leads to wisdom. Wisdom is Sophia in our myths. She has faith in you finding her. Thank God Eve ate and Adam had the good sense to do as told and eat as well.

[spin]

I'm beginning to appreciate the cognitive linguistic notions that George Lakoff frequently talks about in his attempts to explain how political language (mainly GOP) has its effect. There's a lot more to language than just the words and grammar we use. We classify words according to him in relation to frames and for a few decades conservative politicians have been adept at triggering desired frames to influence our thought. Lakoff also notes that there are conservative and progressive values and no moderate ones. People who are "moderates" just have a somewhat balanced selection of conservative and progressive ideas. They are the people that the Republicans seek to manipulate through the cognizant use of frames.

One may be able to align some of those conservative values beyond upbringing or nurturing to genetics. A recent article in the NYT Thomas B. Edsall cites psychologists who write:

that “authoritarianism, religiousness and conservatism,” which they call the “traditional moral values triad,” are “substantially influenced by genetic factors.”

I start to tremble at the idea that one's values can have a genetic component.

I am not a deist of any sort and I see no basis for seeking ideas that have no verifiable or falsifiable content in them. When we seek we have the propensity to find, whether what is sought for exists or not. This puts the individual who has found a deity in the position of never knowing they have a basis for what they believe to be so. They all seem to substitute "faith" for "knowledge" and abnegate further epistemological efforts, so that they then equate a faith-based ontology with knowledge. In the interpersonal world information that has no epistemological basis can simply be dismissed as nonsense by those who do not share the ontological commitment necessary to hold significant a deity. The believing individual has no means of logically communicating his/her belief.

A lot more goes on in the head than we are aware of, as all the forgoing is meant to suggest. However, if knowledge is significant to the individual, then the method of knowing should also be significant, otherwise you don't know what you know (in all its ambiguity). If you cannot supply an objective means of testing what you think you know, then you do not know it. Gods by definition are outside the individual's means of testing objectively.

I would advocate that anyone who thinks there is a deity do an analysis of what objective grounds they have for so thinking. I doubt that you have any.

Seeking gods is a step into unreason. There is enough complexity regarding what goes on in one's head without adding to the mix with a set of unknowns that cannot be tested and therefore present as no different from any of those manifestations we usually label delusional. Once one has made the personal commitment to delusion the world can have a logical order to it. How can one tell whether religious commitment and psychosis are qualitatively different. I don't believe they can.

[beowulf]

Where and how do you seek God? Or are you an idol worshiper?

There are so many Gods and Goddesses in forums today that these places begin to look as in the days of Babel. Two camps do seem to be forming though. Those who seek on the left and and those who have found on the right.

Which camp are you in?

If you seek God, where are you looking?

If you have found your God, please supply a name. Show me yours and I will show you mine.

Regards
DL

P.S. Gnosis is knowledge that leads to wisdom. Wisdom is Sophia in our myths. She has faith in you finding her. Thank God Eve ate and Adam had the good sense to do as told and eat as well.

You have posted this question in many forums . Are you collecting material for a book?

[Gnostic Bishop]

No. It is just that bright minds are rare and I seek them.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

I'm beginning to appreciate the cognitive linguistic notions that George Lakoff frequently talks about in his attempts to explain how political language (mainly GOP) has its effect. There's a lot more to language than just the words and grammar we use. We classify words according to him in relation to frames and for a few decades conservative politicians have been adept at triggering desired frames to influence our thought. Lakoff also notes that there are conservative and progressive values and no moderate ones. People who are "moderates" just have a somewhat balanced selection of conservative and progressive ideas. They are the people that the Republicans seek to manipulate through the cognizant use of frames.

One may be able to align some of those conservative values beyond upbringing or nurturing to genetics. A recent article in the NYT Thomas B. Edsall cites psychologists who write:

that “authoritarianism, religiousness and conservatism,” which they call the “traditional moral values triad,” are “substantially influenced by genetic factors.”

I start to tremble at the idea that one's values can have a genetic component.

I am not a deist of any sort and I see no basis for seeking ideas that have no verifiable or falsifiable content in them. When we seek we have the propensity to find, whether what is sought for exists or not. This puts the individual who has found a deity in the position of never knowing they have a basis for what they believe to be so. They all seem to substitute "faith" for "knowledge" and abnegate further epistemological efforts, so that they then equate a faith-based ontology with knowledge. In the interpersonal world information that has no epistemological basis can simply be dismissed as nonsense by those who do not share the ontological commitment necessary to hold significant a deity. The believing individual has no means of logically communicating his/her belief.

A lot more goes on in the head than we are aware of, as all the forgoing is meant to suggest. However, if knowledge is significant to the individual, then the method of knowing should also be significant, otherwise you don't know what you know (in all its ambiguity). If you cannot supply an objective means of testing what you think you know, then you do not know it. Gods by definition are outside the individual's means of testing objectively.

I would advocate that anyone who thinks there is a deity do an analysis of what objective grounds they have for so thinking. I doubt that you have any.

Seeking gods is a step into unreason. There is enough complexity regarding what goes on in one's head without adding to the mix with a set of unknowns that cannot be tested and therefore present as no different from any of those manifestations we usually label delusional. Once one has made the personal commitment to delusion the world can have a logical order to it. How can one tell whether religious commitment and psychosis are qualitatively different. I don't believe they can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kZg1ZflpJs

No argument my friend but it all depends on how you define the word God.

I seek God only as defined as the best theology of philosophy to live life by.

My apotheosis forced me to change that definition somewhat but the goal is the same even if I did find something invisible to this world at present. That is why that whatever one finds through apotheosis, one set's lower than the next goal and in that sense, we should all be perpetual; seekers. If not, then we become idol worshipers.

Regards
DL

[spin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kZg1ZflpJs

That's one arrogant duffer. And I l-o-v-e-d the musical accompaniment to sell the faux seriousness.

No argument my friend but it all depends on how you define the word God.

I seek God only as defined as the best theology of philosophy to live life by.

We can redefine terms to suit ourselves, but that doesn't help in the act of communication. If your definition of a word markedly differs from what everyone else's is, you simple won't be saying to them what you want to say, unless it is "change your definition of god to match mine." The vastest majority of people understand the word "god" to involve a superhuman being who makes demands on the lives of mere mortals, usually imposing a set of standards of behavior upon them. Ultimately, those standards are completely arbitrary and one either accepts them or one stops holding the god to be of significance.

If your definition of a god does not involve such a superhuman entity, then it is not a definition that will reflect understanding in most others' minds. Of course for rationalists a definition that involves a superhuman entity, the notion itself does not show signs of reflecting the world.

Naturally, the whole notion that our video duffer is dealing with is the fact that for the believer, no-one can serve both god and mammon. Mammon ostensibly involves more than just the literal significance of money, wealth, but anything one can put on a higher level of commitment than that to the superhuman entity who requires your adherence.

Let's put this aside and turn to your last comment above: "I seek God only as defined as the best theology of philosophy to live life by." I can understand a statement such as, "I seek the best philosophy to live life by." I don't see what semantic content your statement adds to my last quoted statement. In fact I can't extract meaning out of a "theology of philosophy".

My apotheosis forced me to change that definition somewhat but the goal is the same even if I did find something invisible to this world at present. That is why that whatever one finds through apotheosis, one set's lower than the next goal and in that sense, we should all be perpetual; seekers. If not, then we become idol worshipers.

Seekers are often finders, though they may have little control over what it is exactly that they think they find. Are goals and achievements not a species of mammon?

[ficino]

My apotheosis forced me to change that definition somewhat but the goal is the same even if I did find something invisible to this world at present. That is why that whatever one finds through apotheosis, one set's lower than the next goal and in that sense, we should all be perpetual; seekers. If not, then we become idol worshipers.

Regards
DL

Glad to know that you've become a god, DL. For that's what happens in apotheosis. You may think we're all gods, I don't know. Trajan famously quipped on his own apotheosis. Hope it's working for you.

[hjalti]

That's one arrogant duffer. And I l-o-v-e-d the musical accompaniment to sell the faux seriousness.

The exagerrated hand movements annoyed me

If your definition of a god does not involve such a superhuman entity, then it is not a definition that will reflect understanding in most others' minds. Of course for rationalists a definition that involves a superhuman entity, the notion itself does not show signs of reflecting the world.

Naturally, the whole notion that our video duffer is dealing with is the fact that for the believer, no-one can serve both god and mammon. Mammon ostensibly involves more than just the literal significance of money, wealth, but anything one can put on a higher level of commitment than that to the superhuman entity who requires your adherence.

I've encountered this strange definition of god ("that which is most important to you is your god") in material from the lutheran state church (in Iceland). I think that they're just trying to make the 1st commandment relevant in some way for people who aren't polytheists.

[Gnostic Bishop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... kZg1ZflpJs

That's one arrogant duffer. And I l-o-v-e-d the musical accompaniment to sell the faux seriousness.

No argument my friend but it all depends on how you define the word God.

I seek God only as defined as the best theology of philosophy to live life by.

We can redefine terms to suit ourselves, but that doesn't help in the act of communication. If your definition of a word markedly differs from what everyone else's is, you simple won't be saying to them what you want to say, unless it is "change your definition of god to match mine." The vastest majority of people understand the word "god" to involve a superhuman being who makes demands on the lives of mere mortals, usually imposing a set of standards of behavior upon them. Ultimately, those standards are completely arbitrary and one either accepts them or one stops holding the god to be of significance.

If your definition of a god does not involve such a superhuman entity, then it is not a definition that will reflect understanding in most others' minds. Of course for rationalists a definition that involves a superhuman entity, the notion itself does not show signs of reflecting the world.

Naturally, the whole notion that our video duffer is dealing with is the fact that for the believer, no-one can serve both god and mammon. Mammon ostensibly involves more than just the literal significance of money, wealth, but anything one can put on a higher level of commitment than that to the superhuman entity who requires your adherence.

Let's put this aside and turn to your last comment above: "I seek God only as defined as the best theology of philosophy to live life by." I can understand a statement such as, "I seek the best philosophy to live life by." I don't see what semantic content your statement adds to my last quoted statement. In fact I can't extract meaning out of a "theology of philosophy".

My apotheosis forced me to change that definition somewhat but the goal is the same even if I did find something invisible to this world at present. That is why that whatever one finds through apotheosis, one set's lower than the next goal and in that sense, we should all be perpetual; seekers. If not, then we become idol worshipers.

Seekers are often finders, though they may have little control over what it is exactly that they think they find. Are goals and achievements not a species of mammon?

Food for the soul? Sure.

""theology of philosophy".

This was my bad spelling.

I seek the best theology or philosophy. The best rules to live by.
So far, secular law beats religious laws hands down, even though I am a Gnostic Christian. As a Universalist, I have to go by the best that I can find regardless of the source.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

My apotheosis forced me to change that definition somewhat but the goal is the same even if I did find something invisible to this world at present. That is why that whatever one finds through apotheosis, one set's lower than the next goal and in that sense, we should all be perpetual; seekers. If not, then we become idol worshipers.

Regards
DL

Glad to know that you've become a god, DL. For that's what happens in apotheosis. You may think we're all gods, I don't know. Trajan famously quipped on his own apotheosis. Hope it's working for you.

http://www.thesongofgod.com/tgc/basic_beliefs.html

Yes. I am pleased to have elevated myself a bit. I continue to climb Jacob`s ladder.
That is my best analogy for apotheosis. Jesus also has a decent way of saying the same thing I do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesf ... r_embedded

Churches of course do not teach Jesus` message. They want sheep while Jesus wants goats.

Regards
DL