As You Seek, So Shall You Find?

[Sunstone]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods.

To me, the proper belief about gods is agnosticism, which is the proper position to take regarding any proposition that is logically possible and can neither be ruled in nor out. Anything else is guessing, and I don''t see a need or reason to guess about gods.

 

[WalterTrull]

Don't know about toads and frogs, - well they're a little icky. Never could get into the legs thing. Also, firmly held beliefs tend to dissolve in the appropriate atmosphere.
I think of the "seek..." admonition more closely akin to "a rolling stone..." and the hiding talents thing. Move it. You'll have ups and downs. You'll be right sometimes, wrong sometimes, but if you sit and do nothing, that's what you'll have, nothing.

 

[Orbit]

I still maintain that your beliefs will affect how you interpret your mystic experience, they will not cause it. Beliefs are an intellectual exercise. Mystic experience doesn't come from the rational mind.

 

[Woberts]

god is a great blue toad

Wonderful observation.
I'm going to agree with @It Aint Necessarily So. Agnosticism is the logical standpoint. Unless the FSM is involved.

 

[Thief]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

well yes.....of course....

I seek the Almighty
and when I find Him.....I will be careful
the term implies....bigger faster, stronger, more intelligent and greatly experienced
if any of these superlatives are not His....He would not be the Almighty

and it's not how I will deal with Him
it's how I have dealt with others

 

[BSM1]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

The first problem with this concept is that I have found that most people have no idea what they are looking for. It seems many folks just want a validation of long held beliefs and not the truth. By the same token, many seekers simply want to be right instead of truthful. If you go looking for your truth you can't be squeamish about what you might find. But, in all fairness, this is not for everyone; you have to be willing to tear down and cast out everything you've ever believed or think you've known and start from scratch. This is not an easy thing to do.

(BTW, I have found that when it comes to truth one person know no more nor no less than the next person).

At least that's how I see it, but I am usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself! (Where have I heard that before?)

 

[Vouthon]

To me, the proper belief about gods is agnosticism, which is the proper position to take regarding any proposition that is logically possible and can neither be ruled in nor out. Anything else is guessing, and I don''t see a need or reason to guess about gods.

Your argument here is similar to one put forward by the Brazilian theoretical physicist Marcelo Gleiser, in an interview in Scientific American with John Horgan, last month:

The More We Know, the More Mystery There Is

Horgan: Do you believe in God?

Gleiser: I position myself as an agnostic. I don’t see evidence for any kind of supernatural being or intervention, but also understand that we are partially blind to what’s out there and hence should show some humility. I see atheism as being inconsistent with the scientific method, as it is, essentially, belief in nonbelief. It does not offer any proof of nonexistence as that would be literally impossible through science. Atheism elevates belief to a rational argument that is very ill-founded epistemologically. You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent. If you are nonbeliever, the only position consistent with science is agnosticism.​

 

[Foxic]

The problem with being open minded about what one can seek and find is that it allows any concept, no matter how illogical, to be accepted as real.

Seek an invisible red dragon, as a child would an imaginary friend, and with an open mind it shall be found. Of course, rational people know those concepts to be symptoms of delusion, and finding deities is no different.

 

[Nakosis]

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

I believe with enough conscious willfulness, you can cause you subconscious mind to create the religious experience of your beliefs.

That along with confirmation bias, it's pretty easy to experience whatever religious truth you believe in.

 

[sayak83]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

If one already have decided about the form and nature of God, one is not seeking at all but indulging in an exercise of self-justification. I believe the proverb "As you seek, so shall you find" refers to the fact that the success of your search depends on the sincerity and epistemic humility of the search.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about

But people are content with second hand accounts of Chris Columbus or Abraham Lincoln being real.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Breakthrough study reveals how LSD dissolves a person's sense of self

One way that many use to seek the truth, but often just as false as seeking out that which tends to appeal. True honesty is accepting that which one doesn't particularly like - as in the sheer brutality of much of life - the non-human variety - but it might also apply to humans.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

Here, if a person traveled outside the norm theyd either be coerced to believe in the real god or told point blank youre wrong. Let along, if you believe in more than god, thats heresy.

I see it more Experience and you Shall Find. Some people find god based on an experience they call god rather than something they willingly seeked out. Taking off the ego of their having any part in finding god. Total surender.

It wont hinder your beliefs if you are firm in your experience to the contrary. When I was Catholic, I was very defensive. I realize when you truely believe something the walls of sinner and innocent down. No need to define oneself as a sinner and keep repenting daily. Without living the ideal of god, if someone asked me my faith its easier to say it. Not by label; I have many of those according to religious society.

I mean mystical experiences with a deity is not false just misrepresented as an external source.

Everything else Im kinda confused on. Thats my tid bit.

 

[sun rise]

"as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Atheists who have such an experience are an interesting group in light of this proposition. As far as NDE's go Near-Death Experiences of Atheists

And there was this excerpt that spoke to me. The Rise of the Spiritual Atheist – Finding Meaning Without God

Every individual has had an experience of insignificance in the face of something truly great, the feeling of incalculable joy when experiencing something breathtaking. Spirituality recognises the reality of this feeling, that the world is capable of evoking feelings of astounding beauty. The subjective and the objective were once considered separate worlds, but both are necessary for truly understanding human experiences.

So who is a Spiritual Atheist? A spiritual atheist is self-aware, compassionate individual who is looking for deeper connection with other beings and nature. A rationally minded and yet subjectively aware person, who practices meditation, contemplates consciousness and at the same time rejects the dogmas and superstition surrounding these very experiences.

if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

I agree and the key word is 'self'. Understanding is "standing under" and that means letting go at least for a time of the self to be open.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Gleiser: I position myself as an agnostic. I don’t see evidence for any kind of supernatural being or intervention, but also understand that we are partially blind to what’s out there and hence should show some humility. I see atheism as being inconsistent with the scientific method, as it is, essentially, belief in nonbelief. It does not offer any proof of nonexistence as that would be literally impossible through science. Atheism elevates belief to a rational argument that is very ill-founded epistemologically. You may not believe in God, but to affirm its nonexistence with certainty is not scientifically consistent. If you are nonbeliever, the only position consistent with science is agnosticism.

Thanks for that.

He appears to use a different definition of atheist than I do. His definition seems to treat atheist and agnostic as mutually exclusive categories. I consider myself both.

Like many others, I find it more useful to define an atheist as anybody that is not a theist, that is, anybody who answers to no to the question of whether he believes in a god or gods.

As you know from my previous post, I consider myself an agnostic. If one's definition of atheist does not include people like me, then I'd suggest that that definition is too narrow to be useful. You'd only be including unbelievers willing to claim as fact what they cannot possibly know - that there are no gods. When doing a survey or poll, for example, what value is there in separating out and counting just those people when trying to assess the religiosity of a population, for example?

The problem with being open minded about what one can seek and find is that it allows any concept, no matter how illogical, to be accepted as real.

That's a different definition of open-minded than I use. That's being a passive recipient of ideas accepted without being critically evaluated. One ends up with unjustified beliefs.

Open minded does not mean that there are no barriers to the inclusion of an idea in an mind. It merely means a willingness to consider an idea dispassionately, and with the ability and willingness to be swayed by a compelling argument. Illogical arguments will be recognized and rejected by such a mind.

Do you agree with that?

suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity

But people are content with second hand accounts of Chris Columbus or Abraham Lincoln being real.

That's not an apt analogy. The two situations are more different than alike, especially where it matters. Yes, I am content with second hand accounts of Columbus and Lincoln, but not of gods. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

Also, the people who told us about Columbus and Lincoln were more contemporary - many known by name and reputation - and their stories corroborated by independent sources. The French and British corroborate the Italian account.

Ancient accounts of fabulous stories from anonymous sources give us nothing more reliable than The Odyssey.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

Why so?

Also, the people who told us about Columbus and Lincoln were more contemporary - many known by name and reputation - and their stories corroborated by independent sources. The French and British corroborate the Italian account.

Still, they're "second hand accounts". Do you personally know and have talked to these, "contemporaries" that corroborate the stories, or just "second hand accounts" of the contemporaries corroboration?

 

[Phantasman]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

Yep. If you seek in only the Bidle, you seek the catholic way. If you seek everywhere, you seek the Spirit in all places. The Spirit cannot be imprisoned by man. But many seem to follow that synopsis.

(2) Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."- Thomas

(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."- Thomas

Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped.- Gospel of Philip

Truth came by Christ. No one else brought it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed.

Why so?

Let me give you an illustration, two claims, one very ordinary, the other extraordinary :

The first claim is that the sun will disappear from our view tonight and reappear to us in the dawn, assuming that we are presently on the surface of the earth. How much evidence, and of what nature, do I need to provide for you to believe that?

The second claim is that the sun will dive below the horizon tonight and never be seen again by anyone. That's a pretty extraordinary claim. You're probably going to need extraordinary evidence before you'll believe that, unless you are just willing to believe insufficiently supported claims by faith.

Still, they're "second hand accounts". Do you personally know and have talked to these, "contemporaries" that corroborate the stories, or just "second hand accounts" of the contemporaries corroboration?

It's not necessary to meet and speak with such people to believe that they existed and that their stories describe real people and historical events.

It's all about how one processes evidence. Doing it properly is a learned skill, one impeded by being told that faith based thinking is a valid path to truth and encouraging such thinking.

And there are ways to confirm that one is interpreting evidence properly. Can you accurately predict and at times control outcomes with your conclusions in a way that you couldn't with other conclusions? If so, you are probably evaluating evidence properly.

I have in the past often believed some second-hand accounts and not others according to their provenance. Believing the one group but not the other according to criteria alluded at here has served me well.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It seems a popular notion -- especially in the West -- that one should cultivate the proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods. But suppose a person is not content with second-hand accounts of what is proper, right, or true to believe about deity, and he or she instead wishes to find out for themselves what is true: That is, they wish to have a first-hand experience of deity. Would such a person most likely be (1) helped, (2) hindered, or (3) prevented from having a first-hand experience of deity by trying to cultivate proper, right, or true beliefs about the god or gods?

Comments? Observations? Mouth-Frothing Rants?




As for myself, I think "as you seek, so shall you find" applies here. If you firmly convince yourself that god is a great blue toad, then should you have an experience, it will almost certainly be a religious experience of a great blue toad or something similar enough to a great blue toad (a great blue frog perhaps).

Second, the mere fact you have a firmly held belief about deity might hinder or prevent you even from having a merely religious experience of deity -- let alone a genuinely mystical experience. That is, if you happen to self-identify with your belief about deity, then you are strengthening the very ego or psychological self that must be to at least some extent suspended for you to have a religious experience -- and fully suspended for you to have a mystical experience. But strengthening the ego is just the opposite of what needs to be done!

At least that's how I see it, but I'm usually wrong about these things. You should go look for yourself!

It's an interesting question, I used to write it off as confirmation bias also- when people told me I needed to believe before it would be confirmed..

I see what they mean now, yes it sounds a little illogical- but it is also entirely logical that God wants us to find him ourselves- you can't force faith on someone, it has to be a choice of free will