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 ?
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
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...
why? 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 if I guess rightly, you are not really interested in knowledge of god but the verification of it. true?
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.. What you are really saying is that religion works for people. I don't disagree. No, I'm interested in both.. not one or the other.
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)
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.
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. 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 so if I said "I know god is a purple banana" what would be your next question?
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?
I know.. 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. Take a guess.. lol
