Esoteric Online

  • Me

    Hello. I have to ask you guys something: how do you conceptualize God? How do you define it?

  • sobroquet

    By not attempting to.

  • Me

    So you do believe that behind the universe, there is a creator consciousness?

  • sobroquet

    I do.

  • Moonchild

    wow, that's an interesting question Thaddeus, why do you ask?

  • Amber

    I belive that

  • hi thad and moon

  • Moonchild

    Hiya Amber :) *HUGS*

  • Amber

    hugs moon

  • Moonchild

    Hiya Thaddeus and sobroquet :)

  • Me

    I ask because I feel like I've reconciled many years of my disparate conceptions of God

  • and I'm curious what other people think

  • sobroquet

    :-)

  • It's good to be reconciled.

  • Me

    Indeed :)

  • Moonchild

    what was the missing piece that brought it all together for you?

  • sobroquet

    I believe all human conceptions of God are mere anthromorphizing, which is why thee is panthiesim.

  • Me

    Well, the pieces were all there, all along. I think what brought it all together for me was, in pursuit of spirituality separating all the elements of my conceptions just now during a meditation session, and viewing them all as facets of the same thing

  • I both agree and disagree sobroquet

  • Moonchild

    Thank you for sharing that with us, Thaddeus :)

  • Me

    I wanted to approach the conception in a very rational, philosophical way, incorporating the philosophy of Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Berkely and others

  • sobroquet

    The I presume you believe Jesus H. Christ was indeed the divine son of God brought by an immaculate conception?

  • Me

    And in the end, I do believe the 'proof' of God will not exist, that there are two kinds of knowledge, one rational one transcendental, but by applying the logic of both modes (I do believe metaphysical logic is sound) a conception of God can be made that reconciles both theology and science

  • No I do not

  • sobroquet

    It isn't a rational subject. That's why its surrounded by so much embellishment.

  • Me

    Our conception of God is a rational subject.

  • Just as dreams can be rationally explored through archetypes and symbols

  • sobroquet

    You wanna ahswer the Jesus query?

  • Me

    Pose it and I will try

  • Oh from before? I did

  • sobroquet

    IC

  • Me

    I said I do not believe he is the immaculate conception and divine son of god. I do not believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob

  • sobroquet

    Ok you'll burn in incessant anguish.

  • jk

  • Me

    Are you being sardonic, or do you believe that?

  • lol

  • phwew.

  • That was a close one

  • sobroquet

    I said it wasn't rational.

  • Judge ye not lest thy judge thy self.

  • Me

    Well, I believe the concept of God is rational or can be rationally explored through metaphysical logic that, like I said, I believe is sound

  • Know Thyself ;)

  • sobroquet

    Isn't that the ultimate motive behind Alchemy?

  • Me

    Well that stems from Crowley and is part of the foundation of the OTO

  • but I see that as a motive in most hermetic and mystic paths

  • sobroquet

    Crowley stemmed from it.

  • Me

    And personally my pursuit of spiritual alchemy is motivated by that and other things

  • Yeah, I guess I just meant that he seemed to have 'revitalized' it in popular culture

  • sobroquet

    I know very little about him, or the OTO.

  • Me

    To say it is the motive of alchemy is true but it is also the motive of many things. There was a study recently where they hooked people up to FMRI's and asked them to think about god

  • another group, they asked to think about themselves

  • they are finding that the human brain accesses the same areas when thinking about god as it does when they think about themselves

  • sobroquet

    What does that prove? zero

  • Me

    Well, I posit that you cannot prove the existence of God

  • however as I said, you can explore it rationally as a concept

  • sobroquet

    God is beyond all conception, much less neurons.

  • Me

    To 'Know Thyself' is to 'Know God'

  • or, to know your conception of God

  • is to know your conception of self

  • sobroquet

    I can't prove it or disprove it.

  • Me

    the 'raising of consciousness'

  • Neither can I, but I can reconcile the myriad conceptions of God with a combination of rational logic and transcendental empiricism

  • sobroquet

    By attempting to quantify or qualify God I would be in doubt. It's futile and vain.

  • Me

    I'm not trying to do that

  • sobroquet

    I wish you well.

  • rationality is not superstitious

  • Me

    Is not the goal of alchemy besides knowing yourself, to raise consciousness? to access your higher self?

  • is not knowing yourself an aspect of attaining higher consciousness?

  • sobroquet

    I'd say you're correct.

  • Me

    Then it rationally follows given what we know about neurons and their functionality, that in raising our consciousness to access our higherself by 'knowing ourself', similar to accessing our higher concept of God and thus 'knowing god'

  • not proving, knowing

  • in a mode of metaphysical experience that any individual can attain

  • 11:42 AM
  • sobroquet

    Meaning gets lost in semantics.

  • Me

    Getting back to Jesus, I believe like many other individuals in history, he was like all of us an aspect of the mind of God just as the whole universe is a function of the mind of God

  • I disagree

  • Humans rely on linguistics to interpret the world. What we can't describe in words can be communicated in symbols

  • sobroquet

    Reasoning is inadequate to "know' such things.

  • Me

    As Jung thought, I believe that humans can surpass their intellectual limits by means of the shared symbology of the human psyche, subconscious

  • sobroquet

    Some humans maybe.

  • Me

    Again, I'm saying the concept can be explored rationally, but to 'know' such things requires metaphysical, transcendental experiences that all humans can contain

  • obtain ***

  • ...and contain

  • sobroquet

    Ask the average person about archetypes, and the compartmented psyche.

  • Me

    Heh, that's a red herring but I can't disagree

  • sobroquet

    That's a sweeping generalization IMO.

  • Me

    Maybe in the next life they will be the 100th monkey

  • sobroquet

    Literacy doesn't assure mastery.

  • Me

    What is a sweeping generalization? That all souls possess the ability to know themselves and know God, being aspects of God?

  • I never said it did...

  • sobroquet

    I know plenty of peopl taht can read who are stupid.

  • Me

    This is a new argument, if indeed we are debating

  • sobroquet

    No you didn't, but apparently Jung did.

  • Me

    I don't care to debate literacy in relation to intelligence or literacy in relation to spiritual development

  • Ah well, like most things I take what is useful and discard the rest, I wasn't aware that he said that

  • sobroquet

    Hardly a debate.

  • Ayrton Phillips

    Hey all

  • Me

    It is...in the sense that you are saying the concept of God is inconceivable and that there is no use for rationality in exploring the concept, am I wrong?

  • sobroquet

    Thaddeus Sterling Again, I'm saying the concept can be explored rationally, but to 'know' such things requires metaphysical, transcendental experiences that all humans can contain obtain ***

  • No, I'm saying it is of no use to me.

  • Me

    and I'm agreeing, but I am adding to that my belief that a rational concept of God in harmony with a rational concept of metaphysical empirical experiences can reconcile disparate concepts of God through all religions

  • sobroquet

    There's volumes of such dialectics.

  • You are eclectic.

  • Ayrton Phillips

    nice debate guys

  • Me

    We are essentially agreeing with each other except for the part where I am saying that the concept can be rationally reconciled in philosophy

  • metaphysical philosophy is philosophy none the less

  • Amber

    hi ayrton

  • Me

    Hi Ayrton! :)

  • and yes, I am definitely eclectic

  • sobroquet

    As long as you agree to entertain the incredible and fantastic it is a tenable adventure.

  • Me

    I fully believe in the alchemical principle of ballancing every notion with its counter ballance

  • sobroquet

    To me its kicking a dead horse.

  • Me

    God isn't dead though ;)

  • sobroquet

    its a metaphor

  • Me

    so is what I said

  • heh,

  • Imagine a world where people could more easily reconcile their concept of God and have a better chance at waking up and pursuing higher consciousness, is that not the world we all hoped for in the aftermath of 2012? a spiritual awakening?

  • like you said, so many people out there can't fathom the psyche

  • I believe the reason for that is the ideas that have shaped the general concept of God for many many years

  • sobroquet

    I'm not an idealist, I'm a pragmatist.

  • Me

    On the one hand, Judao-Christian concepts have shaped the average concept of God

  • while the atheistic philosophy of Nietszche and others have shaped the concept of atheism

  • sobroquet

    Maybe in the western mind/Ocident

  • Me

    Pitting each other against each other and allowing little room for the middle path

  • except in those lucky enough to experience th metaphysical and have a reason to pursue it

  • meanwhile the metaphysical philosophers have shaped the concept of not being able to know anything in itself

  • sobroquet

    *Occident

  • Me

    So, and I am a pragmatist as well,

  • Ayrton Phillips

    Hey Amber hey Sterling

  • sobroquet

    solipsism is just a fancy philosophical cop out.

  • Me

    I'm saying, it is possible to reconcile disparate concepts of God by rational exploration balanced by metaphysical experience, thus harmonizing the two, taking the alchemical middle path and allowing oneself to know oneself and also know God

  • I'm not taking a solipsistic stance

  • At all

  • a thing in itself is not meant to be read solipsisticly, I apologize

  • a thing being any material or metaphysical thing in the universe

  • god as a concept being one of those things, which is where I disagree with metaphysical philosophers

  • that a thing in itself can't be known, i.e. God can't be 'Known'

  • sobroquet

    It is possible to reconcile disparate concepts.

  • ambivalence for instance

  • Me

    Ah! great subject, that's a hard thing for someone to reconcile in terms of their concept of God

  • Can God be ambivilant while allowing pain, anguish, strife, and so on?

  • I believe so.

  • These things exist, our concepts of good and evil exist, so how could a creator God allow them to happen?

  • Ayrton Phillips

    I agree

  • Me

    I see that as a narrow minded conceptualization of an ambivilant God

  • sobroquet

    beats me all to hell

  • Me

    Well, see, that's why I'm so excited to talk about this

  • because I have reconciled that in my conceptualization of God

  • Ayrton Phillips

    great topic for my debate group lol

  • Me

    via a balanced approach based in spiritual alchemy and rational exploration of the psyche

  • Ah but this is so much more immediate! strike while the iron's hot

  • lol, sorry...I'm very passionate right now, this all fell in to place during meditation and I had to talk about it

  • sobroquet

    Hindus see it as a triad Brahma, Siva, Vishnu et al

  • Me

    Because to me it's a revelation and seems to be exactly what alchemy seeks to do

  • Sure, and Gnostics see it similarly with the demiurge being the composer of the illusion that keeps us from knowing God

  • Ayrton Phillips

    when it hits you you gotta gop for it

  • go*

  • sobroquet

    No need to apologize, I like passion.

  • Me

    and all kinds of embodiments of the psyche and the universe

  • Ayrton Phillips

    I'll copy and paste it to the group if you like later

  • Me

    that would be great! :)

  • sobroquet

    demiurge/maya

  • You see the similarities that are blinded by dogma and doctrine, denomination, and sectarian thinking.

  • Me

    See, allow me to make another assertion...if God exists, then God created the universe. If God created the universe, all aspects of the universe are aspects of God. If all aspects of the universe are aspects of God, then all religious beliefs are aspects of God. If this is all true,

  • Then all religions are touching on aspects of God

  • sobroquet

    yes

  • Ayrton Phillips

    definately

  • Me

    a God that cannot be proven, but can be known. Aspects can be known through all forms of religion and consciousness-raising practice

  • Ayrton Phillips

    I think all religions are connected, just through time and most notably ego they've become twisted

  • Me

    The problem arises when people try to reconcile these disparate notions...that the hindu believe one thing, the christians another, science another and philosophy yet another again

  • so the more aspects of God you 'know' the more you 'know god'

  • and since these are all conceptualized in the human psyche, equally the more you come to 'know thyself'

  • and hence 'know god', and so on, a perfect golden braid

  • an infinite loop

  • both true and false and finite and infite knowable and unknowable inside time and outside time, through all history and yet only in this 'moment'

  • exactly Ayrton, I believe that as well

  • sobroquet

    Yes they are diametrically opposed, and mutually exclusive. They are imperative in insisting that through their faith is the only channel.

  • Me

    It wasn't until today though that I could reconcile the various concepts of God that I've encountered, which has kept me from 'knowing God'

  • yeah exactly!

  • sobroquet

    That's why I think its a joke that a church would share space with a synagogue or a temple.

  • Me

    I think it should be ideal

  • sobroquet

    Flys in the face of the scriptures.

  • it's absurd

  • Me

    If all we as a species do is try to define opposing concepts instead of reconciling them we fundamentally limit the degree to which we can experience the metaphysical

  • And we also limit the extent to which we can experience the facets of God

  • Ayrton Phillips

    Sterling my friend I think you can stop sharpening your pencils, you've got a HUGE peice of work to write now lol

  • Me

    lol

  • it's all because I used the community sharpener my friend ;) and the trial continues

  • sobroquet

    It's like this essentially, nobody wants to be wrong. Humans are shallow pig headed obstinate bigots mostly.

  • Ayrton Phillips

    haha

  • Me

    And Ideally we should transcend all that at some point, shouldn't we?

  • Ayrton Phillips

    no one wants to be wrong and wants everyone else to be wrong

  • to 'rise' themselves above

  • sobroquet

    Breathtaking idealisim.

  • Me

    Well, do you disagree?

  • Ayrton Phillips

    at least thats what they think their doing

  • Me

    Or do you think only those chosen for enlightenment should experience transcendance?

  • sobroquet

    Jesus could return and walk on water and someone would say its fake.

  • Ayrton Phillips

    tough question Sterling

  • Me

    Sure, there's many things wrong with the world and society

  • Why give up because of that?

  • sobroquet

    How should I know whether anyone's chosen?

  • Me

    Well, you said you believe in God

  • Ayrton Phillips

    I think its up to the shall we say 'gifted' ones i.e. first to reach enlightenment should encorage others to do so

  • Me

    And that all these religions are stubborn and humanity is pig headed, you said ask the average person about the things we're talking about and see how stupid they are

  • Ayrton Phillips

    if Enlightenment grants you access to the universal truth is it not everyones right to reach it?

  • Me

    Exactly, that's the point I'm making

Views: 60

© 2019   Created by The Community.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service