Is faith synonymous with self-delusion?

With this understanding, yes, I often believe myself to be seated at God's right hand, and in a conversation with Him, directed by His voice.

Well, I think that brings you very close to 'believing to be god'. I mean sitting right beside god, directly hearing and transmitting his voice...

On the other hand you say that you 'pull it off', 'experiment' and rely on 'mental manipulation' so you don't really believe that you are god (or the right hand of god) but just like the effect of it. Therefore, I'd say you are an actor and for one to be an actor he must deceive himself as well as others. So wouldn't you call your experiment to be of a self-delusional nature even if there is effects that feel very real?

In researching the claims of biblical theology, one has to "believe" for the sake of testing.

Maybe. But still, all you can scientifically find out by this experiment or skill is what's it like to be an actor, because one cannot 'reenact' what is sometimes called the 'mystical experience' in so far as this experience is usually described as lacking the subject-object-distinction of the experiment and the experimenter. Therefore, don't you think that in your scientific experiment you mistake the map for the territory?

Philobot,

Since I operate in the state of the art methods for keeping self-deception from misleading me into destructive or fruitless (less truth based) behavior, I use it as I use logic. It has it's place, you know, in the scientific method. The Ideal Gas Law, for example is deduced from the assumption that gas molecules have no mass or volume. My most well received scientific contribution was based on the assumption that birds had perfect knowledge of the possibilities for reproduction and survival in different habitats they might choose. Clearly untrue, but the tool that i developed is now a big deal.

Being a "god" is a key theological goal, in biblical theology. There are many experiments one can only do by assuming one is restored to the god state in which we were supposedly created. Of course, by "god," I mean the "dark matter" being with the ability to do energy/matter/information transfers from the "heavens" to the earth. Theologically, humans are gods entrapped in a cage of flesh, chained, blinded, deafened, stupored. The goal of life on earth is to be "set free," "healed" "awakened," and so on.

The use of acting, including method acting, as a tool in both finding the truth, and character developement, is a bit dangerous. In the context of a strong will, however, it is most useful. Walking in another's shoes, for example, is a very effective way to empathize with them, love them wisely. Seeing with their eyes greatly expands one's understanding of what is being looked at. But, in my view, one cannot be dogmatic, and safely use this method. If "faith" is "my opinion, which I choose to hold to without regard to evidence or argument," acting is perforce an open door to fatal self-deception. Immersed in the method, it takes on a dogmatic reality that persists unreasonably beyond the moment or purpose of immersion. We all know the stories.

It is bit like sex. Do it, as method acting, for money, say, and the results are rarely satisfying or "good," (just. Someone is often betrayed.) Do it to "make love" where love is promised but lacking, still might be method acting, but is usually a good thing, if done well. Both just and effective. Theologically, it is called "putting off the old man, and putting on the new man." A modern parable talks about a man who put up forms, to contain concrete. Then waited for the concrete to be poured, and hardened. Then when the forms were taked away, something really solid remained, similar to the form (act). Where the whole work begins with a hope and vision, and willful decision, the remaining permanent concrete is the real deal. The actions are no longer an act.

But, setting foot on the territory is the proof of the pudding.

The method you speak of reminds me of chaos magic. Is this the case?

The method you speak of reminds me of chaos magic. Is this the case?

Quite! Hence, my name, Groktruth, from the science fiction author Heinlein. There is no denying the power of the placebo, so there is something going on here that is 'real."

Religionists, of course, want to eschew dallying with the forces at work here, because they are such as integral part of witchcraft, etc. And, as i have noted, there is theologically a very real and serious danger from putative malignant spiritual beings. But, there is a danger from radioactive materials as well. One just needs to learn the judicious use of lead aprons, before the research begins, just in case....

As far as my study has gone, though, if one is well grounded in "love of truth" goals, in competent and honest (non-hypocritical) philosophy, the use of chaos magic in applied epistemology is both safe and profitable. One only needs to start at the beginning, needs to identify foundational issues and build on them. Again, in biblical theology, "all things work together for good, for those who love the lord, and are called to His purposes." "Lord" here is clearly not the Christian god, but truth and love, whatever they might actually be. (They, biblically, define "God:" "God is truth." "God is love.") If one can honestly say that truth and love are what they are after, and sense a "vocation" to get more of these into human life on this planet, the theological position is that any and everything will be useful, maybe essential.

As best I understand things now. But, as Socrates put it, "I only know that I do not know."

Well, in this case I think I do see the point in what you do.
Even though the method is quite unfamiliar to me in the practical sense, since the method that works in my case is rather a specific form of 'skepticism', which is kind of the opposite of chaos magic which in this respect could be also called 'believism' it seems.
Therefore, it is not entirely unthinkable for me that the result of these two methods, when consequently applied and perhaps precisely because they are polar opposites so to say, are different means to the same end.

Well, in this case I think I do see the point in what you do.
Even though the method is quite unfamiliar to me in the practical sense, since the method that works in my case is rather a specific form of 'skepticism', which is kind of the opposite of chaos magic which in this respect could be also called 'believism' it seems.
Therefore, it is not entirely unthinkable for me that the result of these two methods, when consequently applied and perhaps precisely because they are polar opposites so to say, are different means to the same end.

Wouldn't surprise me. Great number of what scientists call "counter-intuitive" ways to make discoveries, although the truth reached is Schopenhauer's third stage: "I knew that!"

although the truth reached is Schopenhauer's third stage: "I knew that!"

Then why the lantern?

although the truth reached is Schopenhauer's third stage: "I knew that!"

Then why the lantern?

Good to discern the dishonest who, usually inadvertently, are too lazy to dig and persevere to get to stage three on their own, but want you to think otherwise. These are the ones who will ridicule or bitterly oppose other advances, as long as they can. Undiscerned, they can effectively slow down the inquiry.

And, they don't know what they are doing. Probably don't care to know. But, disseminators of freedom need to clarify their choices as much as possible, so they have a better chance to change their mind.

I see now what your motivation is. However, the only use of the lantern, such as you see it, is as a way to show others their weaknesses. That's a valid way to go I think. Nevertheless, I understand that you are not there yet, because you seem not to perceive the more obscure symbolism of the lantern that lies beyond the more obvious, which would show you that god has no weaknesses.

I see now what your motivation is. However, the only use of the lantern, such as you see it, is as a way to show others their weaknesses. That's a valid way to go I think. Nevertheless, I understand that you are not there yet, because you seem not to perceive the more obscure symbolism of the lantern that lies beyond the more obvious, which would show you that god has no weaknesses.

Well, I am glad that I have persuaded you that I see myself in a journey of discovery, and am not there yet. I am much more selfish though, in my search for and use of the lantern. I would say, "to show the weaknesses of others," so that my search for honesty and truth will not get sidetracked. My love for my neighbor, such as it is, awaits my getting my own oxygen mask on. Loving truth and love with all my heart, and any "god" I come to learn, that is the source of these, will, I hope, suffice to get any help to others that they may be willing to receive. My Baptist background, though, has probably contaminated my thinking with "wiping the dust off my feet" before I was ready to understand what that truly means. God's putative lack of weaknesses, I trust is sufficient to clean up any messes I inadvertently leave in the wake of my journey. Hope and trust are not as great as love, but are better than nothing.

I am told that I am kinder, face to face.

I am glad that I have persuaded you that I see myself in a journey of discovery

You not only persuaded me, you also persuaded yourself I must remind you. That's quite an achievement I think

Hope and trust are not as great as love, but are better than nothing.

I feel compelled to say that there is only love but I don't... really...
Since the common concept of 'love' is 'self-love' it has such a hollow ring to it.

I am told that I am kinder, face to face.

I bet that this is so. Because of your ...ahm.. 'compassion' perhaps?

Philobot,

FYI, biblical theology predicts that the more important a concept, the more confused will be the definition of the word for that concept. Disinformationists concentrate on disrupting more important communications.

Groktruth you wrote:
FYI, biblical theology predicts that the more important a concept, the more confused will be the definition of the word for that concept. Disinformationists concentrate on disrupting more important communications.

This biblical theology you talk about, would you please let us know who your authority might be?
Is this authority recognized by the general religious community and does this person have accreditation from a recognized university?
The reason I ask is some of the things that you have mentioned seem so foreign to anything I have read or heard.

Regards, John.

Groktruth you wrote:
FYI, biblical theology predicts that the more important a concept, the more confused will be the definition of the word for that concept. Disinformationists concentrate on disrupting more important communications.

This biblical theology you talk about, would you please let us know who your authority might be?
Is this authority recognized by the general religious community and does this person have accreditation from a recognized university?
The reason I ask is some of the things that you have mentioned seem so foreign to anything I have read or heard.

Regards, John.

I do not capitalize biblical theology because it is not a named separate discipline. It only is what it is, theology limiting it's consideration to the ideas about God, and gods, as presented in the bible. The bible is a book, so we on a philosophy forum have rules for reading and interpreting books. Theology was conceived as a discipline as a branch of the sciences, referring to the systematic study according to validated scientific methods, of living beings which are persons (intentional), higher in the scale of life (more senses, greater intelligence), and living in parts of the universe which we cannot sense directly (like dark matter, or the "ether," or vacuum space). It was identified as the queen of the sciences because, like forensics today, or spy lore, one is researching hypotheses in the face of an unknown intentional agent attempting to hide information or deceive.

The fact that you have not gotten the skinny on this confirms it's validity. You know about unicorns because, it predicts, they do not exist, and are irrelevant. But the truth about biblical theology needs to be hidden from you, if evil is to keep you as it's slave.

The demons are good at what they do. But God is better, and, if you, as He insists, "search out a matter," the hypothesis predicts you will find a whole world of "evidence of things unseen" His defintion of faith.

Hello Groktruth.

When you mention biblical theology, in reading the first part of your reply, you therefore mean to say "in my opinion" but by using the term "theology" to give it authority it does not merit.

As to the truth of the Bible being hidden from me, exactly the opposite occurred, it just did not stand up to the close scrutiny I gave it for 50 years.

As to demons, perhaps they have visited you, but they are non-existent as far as I am concerned.
I believe it is humans who create demons just like they create their Gods.