What if?

Enmos said:
I am open to knowledge.
No, I wouldn't reject them.

Fine, I'll answer your hypothetical question..
I wouldn't mind knowing God if he existed. All he has to do is make himself known to me.
Click to expand...

Thanks. :)
 
lightgigantic said:
Kind of a big question but I will try and answer it in a way you might find relevant.

in short, knowing anything (anything of moderate complexity anyway)requires that one adopts the habits of persons who are already in knowledge.

If a person is not prepared to take on such association, their pursuit of knowledge faces difficulties.

Knowing god is greatly dependent on the "state of one's being." (particularly envy)

This is what distinguishes it from other fields of knowledge within empiricism.

I think I have run the analogy of knowing the president by you before - if one wants to know the president (personally), it generally requires that one acquire a "state of being" acceptable to the president (as opposed to trying to get past his 16108 and secretaries and body guards).

Just as there are many things knowable about the president in relation to finance, military and diplomacy, there are many things knowable about god that tends to illuminate one's knowledge of other co-existing things.

For instance it would be difficult how an american could know about the diplomatic, military, financial and legal status of the president without also developing knowledge on what these repercussions have on an american (and also a foreigner) and also the socio-economic geography of things american and non-american (and everything in between).

In the same way knowledge of god also puts into context a range of things like one's self, this world, other people, etc etc, and the limitations/values.

As a practical example, if one knows this about god

BG 5.29 A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

it could be verified by their ability to refrain from sinking into misery and anger when their claim to material possession in this world is challenged by fate. If one didn't display this "state of being", their ability to know god as the ultimate controller of this world is not satisfactory (or merely theoretical).

So to recap, 3 points

  1. Knowledge of god is fully dependent on adopting a suitable state of being
  2. Adopting a suitable state of being is dependent on associating with persons who are already in knowledge
  3. The further one one knows about the god, the further issues of the self and environment are also known

The commonest challenge to such knowledge usually is number 2. Generally the substance of a person's reservation about god are due to the persons who represent him.
Click to expand...


Knowledge of god is fully dependent on adopting a suitable state of being
Setting aside that your analogy doesn't fully fit, how does one attain such a state ?

Adopting a suitable state of being is dependent on associating with persons who are already in knowledge
You mean like take their word for it ?

The further one one knows about the god, the further issues of the self and environment are also known
Do I have to take your word for that ?


You didn't answer my question..
What knowledge about God do you have and how did you verify it ?
 
Lori_7 said:
you know what changed with me, was that i got to the point where i wanted to know the truth barring all consequences...whether pleasant or unpleasant, beneficial or not. i certainly wasn't looking for love or communion at the time i made that decision. i just really didn't care what it meant for me anymore, i wanted to know the truth anyway...just for the sake of knowing what it was.
Click to expand...

as much as people tend to hate having their experiences contextualized by scripture .....

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

each one is a more sturdy platform of enquiry than the previous one.

For instance a person seeking relief from distress is not as steady as the seeker of wealth, etc etc all the way to the knower of the absolute, which seems to be where you said you came in.

These 4 persons, while pious and knowing something about god, are not perfectional.

In other words there is a whole aspect of knowing god that is not approached by these 4 states of being - namely knowing the personal aspect of god. Its kind of like the difference between a person on the street saying something about the president and the wife of the president saying something (one is not in a position of reciprocation with the president, and the other is).

I thought this is what you were asking in your OP
 
lightgigantic said:
  1. Knowledge of god is fully dependent on adopting a suitable state of being
  2. Adopting a suitable state of being is dependent on associating with persons who are already in knowledge
  3. The further one one knows about the god, the further issues of the self and environment are also known

The commonest challenge to such knowledge usually is number 2. Generally the substance of a person's reservation about god are due to the persons who represent him.
Click to expand...

either i don't understand you, or i don't agree with you. i'm not sure which...

but it doesn't seem to me that god requires any type of conformity, only the desire to know him. i didn't know what to expect of him or what he expected of me prior to perceiving this interaction with him, and was completely open...
 
Enmos said:
Knowledge of god is fully dependent on adopting a suitable state of being
Setting aside that your analogy doesn't fully fit
Click to expand...
why?

, how does one attain such a state ?
Click to expand...
explained in #2
Adopting a suitable state of being is dependent on associating with persons who are already in knowledge
You mean like take their word for it ?
Click to expand...
thats the first stage, but there is the important part of application
For instance if I tell you that you will understand complex biology by going to university, you will only understand that by applying it (and you would only apply it if you accepted my - or someone elses - word that university is the best place to go to learn these things)
The further one one knows about the god, the further issues of the self and environment are also known
Do I have to take your word for that ?
Click to expand...
only until you succeed in application


You didn't answer my question..
What knowledge about God do you have and how did you verify it ?
Click to expand...
if I guess rightly, you are not really interested in knowledge of god but the verification of it. true?
 
lightgigantic said:
why?
Click to expand...
Because the president cannot be known to anyone that wants to know him. In other words no one but a select few get to attain the suitable state.
I'm guessing this goes against what Christianity teaches..


lightgigantic said:
explained in #2

thats the first stage, but there is the important part of application
For instance if I tell you that you will understand complex biology by going to university, you will only understand that by applying it (and you would only apply it if you accepted my - or someone elses - word that university is the best place to go to learn these things)

only until you succeed in application
Click to expand...
What you are really saying is that religion works for people. I don't disagree.

lightgigantic said:
if I guess rightly, you are not really interested in knowledge of god but the verification of it. true?
Click to expand...
No, I'm interested in both.. not one or the other.
 
Lori_7 said:
either i don't understand you, or i don't agree with you. i'm not sure which...

but it doesn't seem to me that god requires any type of conformity, only the desire to know him. i didn't know what to expect of him or what he expected of me prior to perceiving this interaction with him, and was completely open...
Click to expand...
that is the conformity (or the beginning of it at least)
although conformity is not really a good choice of words since its more an innate ability that is uncovered than something acquired

for eg

1. Knowledge of god is fully dependent on adopting a suitable state of being

lust, avarice, envy etc will not be helpful

2. Adopting a suitable state of being is dependent on associating with persons who are already in knowledge

"birds of a feather flock together"

3. The further one one knows about the god, the further issues of the self and environment are also known

the more I know about god the more I know about myself, others and this world (in terms of "why" moreso than "what" ... which is the pride and joy of empiricism)
 
lightgigantic said:
as much as people tend to hate having their experiences contextualized by scripture .....

BG 7.16: O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me — the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

each one is a more sturdy platform of enquiry than the previous one.

For instance a person seeking relief from distress is not as steady as the seeker of wealth, etc etc all the way to the knower of the absolute, which seems to be where you said you came in.

These 4 persons, while pious and knowing something about god, are not perfectional.

In other words there is a whole aspect of knowing god that is not approached by these 4 states of being - namely knowing the personal aspect of god. Its kind of like the difference between a person on the street saying something about the president and the wife of the president saying something (one is not in a position of reciprocation with the president, and the other is).

I thought this is what you were asking in your OP
Click to expand...


i think i understand what you're saying in that, just because i know he exists, doesn't mean i know him. the more i knew, the more i became intruiged, and the more open and less afraid i was, and the relationship progressed it seems in response to how receptive i was to him and it. there was a lot in the way.
 
Lori_7 said:
i think i understand what you're saying in that, just because i know he exists, doesn't mean i know him. the more i knew, the more i became intruiged, and the more open and less afraid i was, and the relationship progressed it seems in response to how receptive i was to him and it. there was a lot in the way.
Click to expand...

So you knew he existed before you believed in him/knew him ? How did you know he existed ?
 
Enmos said:
Because the president cannot be known to anyone that wants to know him. In other words no one but a select few get to attain the suitable state.
I'm guessing this goes against what Christianity teaches..
Click to expand...
all analogies fail somewhere down the track (the reason the president cannot extend himself to everyone is because he is not god)
it was meant to illustrate more how knowing the president is fully dependent on the dictation of the president - which offers an alternative to say empiricial inquiry.



What you are really saying is that religion works for people. I don't disagree.
Click to expand...
actually what I am saying is that knowledge is dependent on application - religion (knowledge) works for those who apply it - much like biology (knowledge) works for those who go to university


No, I'm interested in both.. not one or the other.
Click to expand...
so if I said "I know god is a purple banana" what would be your next question?
 
Enmos said:
So you knew he existed before you believed in him/knew him ? How did you know he existed ?
Click to expand...
its more that the knowledge intensifies under personal reciprocation.

For instance suppose it was suddenly discovered that at birth you were switched with the president's son and were now warmly invited into the loving atmosphere of the white house family.

Do you think your knowledge of the president would undergo any changes?
 
lightgigantic said:
all analogies fail somewhere down the track (the reason the president cannot extend himself to everyone is because he is not god)
it was meant to illustrate more how knowing the president is fully dependent on the dictation of the president - which offers an alternative to say empiricial inquiry.
Click to expand...
I know..

lightgigantic said:
actually what I am saying is that knowledge is dependent on application - religion (knowledge) works for those who apply it - much like biology (knowledge) works for those who go to university
Click to expand...
Knowledge is not dependent on application. I can know lots of things and never apply them.
What you mean is that through application you know whether or not the knowledge 'works', which says nothing about the correctness of the knowledge.

lightgigantic said:
so if I said "I know god is a purple banana" what would be your next question?
Click to expand...
Take a guess.. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top