Anthropological Reasoning of Deity - Finding the True God

Submitted by M Tovey (United States), Jul 29, 2020 at 18:43

So, while contemplating the other assertions of the exchanges in these various postings, a theme for this observer had begun to emerge in a way that has not been appreciated for quite some time, much due to the overwhelming 'voices of others' that were competing for validation of theories of divinity; and as such, were complicit in ages old competition for whose 'god' was 'god:' essentially claiming 'knowledge' of the origins of (G)od. Of all the various ancient texts, those that have survived in modern scholarship and those which are interpreted by parole evidence, none have been able to humanly 'rise' to the occasion of supreme deity. Like we've seen as surmised in other places in this post, theories abound.

But in the cynicism of the supernatural that is the current hallmark of modern mankind: Does 'god' really exist and if so, why does the human existence (the kosmos) suffer for it? In other words: if there is a omniscient Deity that is purported to have a desire to maintain a loving relationship with His creation of mankind, how/why do bad things happen? In a word, or maybe by an expanded phrasing, rebellion; a rejection of a power that cannot be seen nor apprehended by a mortally rational response to unseen causes and effects on the conditions of mankind. So, replacement theology, in its neo-natal ascension of the mortal mind, begins to provide some sense of how something unseen might have some actual effect on mortal mankind due to there being phenomena occurring which is inexplicable by any mortal rationale.

Now, the ancients were not at a loss for coming up with all sorts of explanations, many thought to be extensions of ancient fables of those times before history began to be recorded, but more in tune with some of the records of the ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians, to name a couple. But insidious to this business is that the issue of rejecting any influences of deity in which the innate introspection of the self, the sufficiency of the intellect of mortal mankind, formed basis of the idea that man, being the internal conscientiousness of identity, is a god. Therefore, the pride of life, the essence of such thinking, places a premium on making life occur; if I can think it, is it not so? Of such are the cases of heads of tribes becoming heads of empire, calling for obeisance from those considered as lesser beings: sons of 'royal' Egyptians perfected this concept, amongst others of those times. This is not too much different in these times.

This can be seen in DNM's exegesis on the formative beginnings of 'D-Y-N,' which as he explains can be seen in the naming of deities in all sorts of sub-regional societies exhorting claims of their own religious affirmations. These regional assertions are seen today, albeit in modern expressions like that found all around the world, the greater-than-yours claims of religious superiority (yes, even in faux-Christian circles-Paul and Peter warned of those nearly two thousand year ago), but other non-Christian expression of belief in which the superiority is used to dominate and control humanity with false claims of being holier-than-thou. Virtually all of the religious exclamations that base their theology (or lack thereof-even the atheists and agnostics are recognized by virtue of denial of existence in the face of witnesses to the contrary) on some form of humanly divined supernatural influences, do so in ignorance or determined defiance of the truth that seems to escape recognition of the reality of who is really in charge of humanity. Monotheism and polytheism, in fact of manner, does not get it done.

Does the term rebellion seem to make more sense if mankind's suffering is a result of mankinds' inability to control its own destiny? More to the point: who really needs to be in charge?
The rise and fall of 'Western' civilization is now dependent on that answer.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".