If one had a desire to define the word god where would he begin? Why would he assign the traits he did to the word? Would he want to assimilate traits that he perceived to be godlike? Would he obtain a clearer vision in a realization of the futility of aspiration, or would pragmatism and adamant tenaciousness afford him a better route? Perhaps we all could benefit by a reassessment of our affinity with god.
The metaphysical extremities of human nature provide man with a multifaceted image of the possible psychic states of God. Objectivity has led man away from the true nature of his need many times at this point. Any retrospective analysis of man’s personifications of deity most often leaves one lost in the quandaries of the psychic quagmire. The weaknesses created by man’s lack of a universally acceptable id conclusion have elevated many philosophical or theocratic hypotheses to the level of demagoguery.
One method which has been used by theologians in attempting to induct a sumerial derivation from the vast warehouse of human religious extrapolation is the concept that perhaps basic truths can be affirmed through the theory of sufficient constancy of conjunction. Which is to say that reasonably analogous conjectures can be found in the depths of religious pervasion. But this is not strictly true.
The ancient Babylonians, like the Indians, were polytheistic. They worshiped gods of nature, tribal union, fertility. Deifications created from allusion to natural analogies, yet often imbued with a euphemistic optimism. Where as the pantheon of Grecian deities often seems an almost banal personification of psychological metaphors from the darker side of life. Zeus a fallibly omnipotent being who pompously subverts all beneath him to his will. Who along with Apollo and others roam the countryside ****** and adulterating the women of their choice. And Ares the formidable God of war who’s natural lust for violence leads him and his cohorts to vicarious involvement with mankind’s altercations.
Egyptian theology seems to have been an amendable and progressive state that began with sun worship and gods of nature, and moved on to attempted assimilation of godlike traits through a natural alignment with the perceived nature of God. There were in depth studies of the nature of time, and life, and notions of existential transcendentalism. The momentum of this progression led them to the ultimate grandiose delusion in which the Pharaoh was worshiped as the universal supreme being, omniscient and omnipotent ruler of the ultimate utopian society.
The Jews worshiped a God who was at once both a part of them and an exogenous force believed to have created them in its own image. A God that deliberately instilled an understanding of it’s intended wisdom by instructing them of the laws they were to live by. These divine revelations were often considered as the unadulterated word of God. This God was jealous and demanded the adoration due him as the supreme essence. His worship became the underlying force in their social conjecture as they attempted to inspire his continued grace and benevolence. A seemingly irrational solution to the quandary of idealism. An allegiance who’s impetus was unquestionable. It seems by me to be improperly rooted on a personal level in that it overemphasizes the need or expectation of divine inspiration.
The ancient Chinese social wisdom was by me commendably rational. Unlike the Jews they do not seem to have overemphasized the expectation of divine inspiration. Instead they, like the Egyptians emphasized an alignment with the perceived nature of God on a personal level as the way to strength. They of course had a conception of the possible natures of deity, but considered wisdom to be an honorably truthful self orientation.
Another realm of intellectual extrapolation from which one might hope to surmise a depthfully pervasive generality would be man’s philosophical treatises on the possible natures of God. Unfortunately due to the myriad nature of possibility this again appears paradoxically difficult. To me this seems to be a product of the nonempirical nature of these conjectures. Humans experience a reality which does not necessarily have any relative effect on the transcendence of their conception of the possible nature of God. Although many have attempted to empiricise their conjectures through rational logic they are most often refuted by the possibility of ultimate transcendence or quandrified by the actuality of paradoxical argument.
Some good examples of these points are perhaps the arguments of Lucretius who attempted to empiricise that God can not revoke mathematical truths. But what is the relative reality of those truths to the transcended essence of ultimate beingness. They are refuted by irrelevance. Another example might be the statement that God has aseity. That is if he exists his existence is not caused. This statement seems easy to refute for the supreme being could be all of the things possible for him except this and have evolved out of eons of cosmic continuum into natural omniscience and or through assimilation of the forces innate to the cosmos have achieved relative omnipotence.
One generally accepted statement that is refuted by these arguments is “the cosmos does not have infinite existence and is therefore not the supreme being.” For if this supreme being has not yet evolved if it’s transcendental form could be said to have become out of cosmic continuum then the cosmos will indeed have achieved infiniteness. But this already seems intuitively necessary to the ultimate cosmic essence regardless of a lack of self consciousness or even a physical form. Perhaps what is possible and eons of void are the root of all force and matter, and perhaps this as yet unfulfilled sequence cycles on to nirvana. Then again perhaps the supreme being does in fact preempt all as a self conscious entity. This also would seem to be intuitively necessary to the essence of totality which of course has always existed and is in fact the supreme being in at that at that although not necessarily the true form of it’s transcendental being.
On this lofty note I would like to reiterate my thesis. Perhaps we all could benefit from a reassessment of our affinity with God.
A man can accomplish many things with his concept of God. What is extraneous? Perhaps the question would better be put what is expedient, but that becomes subjective. You have to define your goals. Where in lies wisdom? Can man truly aspire to godhead or is this personally nonproductive? Man seems to perceive a sort of manifest destiny for himself. An intrinsic affinity with infiniteness that just must be dealt with. Perhaps our beliefs in life after death are a grandiose delusion in which we hedonistically waste our time pampering our egos. Which brings me to my third and final argument.
Perhaps conscious regimentation and an affiliation with earth bound logic would bring us closer to our affinity with God. One of the ideas presented by my philosophical references was that many of mankind’s inspirations to define his affinity with God grew inadvertently out of social realism and the powers assumed. Although often the subjective truths of these understandings went unmentioned out of a desire for objectivity. For example what God must be if God is to be God. Perhaps one would do better to relate personally to his affinity with God.
I think this is true. Although we seem to lack omnipotence we are all individually speaking a preternatural corporeal state. Perhaps we all should assert our godliness instead of hiding our talents in the sand. Perhaps then we could construct a contractual reality. An aspiration to the perfection of the human social mechanic. I salute this concept. In fact I firmly believe that by conscribing unalienable rights to our beings we have already performed the rights of the human social mechanic. Our aspiration to godhead is complete in it’s conjecture. All that is left is to obtain expedience and accuracy in our amendment toward continued obtainment of the majority goal.