Implications of Two Important Axioms of Metaphysical Spirituality
Suppose God exists, and suppose God is ‘relational’, that is, desires, to the extent He deems necessary or sufficient, that man understands Him, as such, understands essence of His Deity.
With stated assumption in tow, at either of some specific point in time, or severally at different points in time, God would have to pick someone who is deserving, and, via whatever means seems to work best, reveal Himself to such a person(male or female).
Important Axiom of Metaphysical Spirituality I:
If God exists, and He is relational, we only are able to know Him if He reveals Himself to, at the very least, one person.
If God were to seek to reveal the same things to every person, God panders to man, with outcome in reality, man seats on the throne that belongs to God. To see this, let us assume God provides the most deserving man with compelling evidence for reality of that man’s metaphysical engagement with God.
Consequent on provision of the evidence, next, God turns attention to a person who is less deserving, attempts to communicate exactly the same revelations and evidence. But if the next person is less deserving, and if such a person will not engage with evidence that are communicated by a more deserving person — the exact same evidence God still will have to provide for convincing of the less deserving person — we arrive at the inference that the less deserving person does not value the sorts of things that the more deserving person values, meaning he or she, in reality is not deserving. In presence of this inference, we arrive at the fact that if God attempts to reveal Himself to each and every person, He panders to man who, in reality, does not have regard for parameters via which God identifies a person who is most deserving of revelations of His Person.
Important Axiom of Metaphysical Spirituality II:
If God reveals Himself severally over time, always He will pick the most deserving person, because if others truly are deserving, but yet only are less deserving, they respect the person that is most deserving, and are willing to engage with evidence that he or she presents from his or her engagement with God.
If a person to whom God reveals Himself does not document revelations of God to which he or she attains, he or she only is able to orally pass on those revelations.
Well, we know what typically happens with orally transmitted revelations, namely, over time, they are distorted by selfish ambitions of those in whom the oral knowledge is reposed. The rationale is straightforward. Whenever a person seems to be the only repository of revelations from God, this because it was his or her forebear who was chosen to receive such revelations, in order for he or she to profit from the monopoly opportunity, he or she has to perturb the revelations, such that, rather than God, the repository becomes focus of the revelations.
We have then that the repository becomes ‘priest’, and with the people wary of consequences of the priest’s acceptance with God, the repository acquires character of a person who is feared. With fear generated in hearts of others, it becomes easy for the repository, who now is priest, to live richly off of his monopoly of revelations from God.
Whenever one person seems to have a lock on revelations from God — with outcome all knowledge of God is oral — typically this leads to transformation of revelations from God into opportunity for self aggrandizement.
In presence of documentation of revelations that come from God, in the sharing of the documentation, everyone has opportunity for perusal of the revelations, for examination of the evidence, for arrival at a decision as to whether they believe the revelations indeed are from God.
Note that belief does not consist necessarily in an evaluation of fraud vis-a-vis credibility. A person truly may have been engaged in some metaphysical experience, but yet the experience is not initiated by God, but by some other spiritual entity claiming to be God. The issue at stake then is not reality or non-reality of a metaphysical experience, but rather the extent to which outcome of the metaphysical experience reveals a God whom you and I would consider worthy of worship.
Evaluation of the evidence devolves then into attempts at ascertainment of the extent to which the evidence proclaims a God with whom you or I would love to engage, a God whom you and I would love to worship — not merely because He is Creator, but rather, because on basis of His merits as God, He is deserving of our worship.
If a computer had consciousness, it would not love to worship a person whom, upon completion of building of the computer would take up a club and smash the computer to smithereens. It is not necessarily the case then that a creator is deserving of worship.
If revelations of God are documented, you and I have opportunity for inspection of the evidence, for ascertaining the extent to which we find the God that is revealed appealing, with outcome God is worthy of our worship.
If God is deserving of our worship, the inference that He is deserving cannot be dissociated from His demands in respect of our worship.
In the declaration of all those whose claims to revelation from God are documented in Christian Scriptures that God seeks worship in context of demonstrations of love — patience, kindness, absence of self arrogating sinful pride, absence of arrogance, gentleness, unwillingness to trample on others merely because we seek our own interests, willingness to practice give and take in respect of things of little importance so everyone can get along etc.— the God who declares Himself Father of Jesus Christ asserts His definition of worship has to do with how His Creation relate to one another. The Father of Jesus Christ declares only those who love His Creation demonstrate that they love and worship Him.
In the specification of prayer, study of revelations of Himself, and participation in fellowship with other believers as aids that enhance capacity for loving of the fellow man, The Father of Jesus Christ conjoins the metaphysical and the physical as follows. Whenever a believer studies Christian Scriptures, prays, or fellowships with other believers, he or she engages in activities that inherently are metaphysical. In the stipulation that love is the standard of worship, The Father of Jesus Christ declares that, if engagement with metaphysical activities does not affect decisions, choices, actions, and activities which transpire in the physical, that is, do not produce a person who is loving to others, the person who engages in such activities either does not participate with a sincere heart, or does not understand essence of the metaphysical activities.
In context of Christian philosophy, worship of God is evident in right, that is, loving treatment of others. Prayer, study of Christian Scriptures, and fellowship with other believers are metaphysical aids that empower with capacity for right treatment of others.
In the stipulation that worship of His Person consists not in the metaphysical activities themselves — prayer, study of Scriptures, or fellowship with other believers — but in demonstrations of love in the physical to other persons, or to all of His other creation, The Father of Jesus Christ provides a definition of worship that is reasonable, pragmatic, and appealing to anyone who, themselves, desire to be treated right by others.
If a definition of worship is reasonable, pragmatic, and appealing to anyone who seeks to be loved, that is, who seeks to be treated right, The God who makes the demand must, Himself, be reasonable, pragmatic, and loving. Can it be any good then that man resists engagement in dialogue, reasoning, and relationship with such a God?
If the fruits from a tree are good (that is, the definition of worship), it only can be because the tree itself is good (it only can be that God Himself is good, as such deserving of worship).