Perhaps the most prevalent assumption that comes up if we pursue to seek out such a lofty goal as “knowing God” is the notion that we already do.  That we, most likely in a position of inferiority to a superior being, understand the will, characteristics, and inner workings of a much superior being.  The study of “God” should be a lengthy one, and the pursuit of knowing him an exponentially increasing and lifelong task.

However I did say perhaps, because what I think may be a much more erroneous and detrimental notion is the assumption that we know who God is based on his followers.  That the finite will always fit the description and act inside the will of the infinite is a thought that (at least to me) seems more than implausible.  The only working metaphor that I can at least see some connection to is asking the infant child to perfectly portray the will of the matured adult.  

It is my goal with these blogs to go on and describe my own pursuit in knowing God, attempt to highlight ways in which to start, theories and modalities to sift through the information surrounding God, and to attempt to highlight Truths about God over religion.  But before I can even get into all that I feel that I must comment at least on the fact that every time we use the word “God” we bring about our own personal and collective assumptions of whom/what he/she (or gods) already is.  In western thought, this is most oftentimes the assumption of the “Christian God.”  And to that I say, if we are constructing our thoughts on who God is based off of the collective, modern, Christian model we are doing ourselves (and I say this as one of them) a great disservice.  It was Gandhi who said, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."  We must also not forget the fact that “Christianity” is a religion.  It is but a mere word used to describe a group of followers of a specific (and I use that ever so loosely) group of beliefs.  If God is truly “God” then he is not only the God of Christians (and the Christian Bible would support this under Romans 3:28-30), but the God of Muslims, of Buddhists, of Hindus, and of all of a subscribed faith or none.

I am not saying that this in turn is some sort of proof, or even supporting evidence for the belief in the universal conglomerate “God”, in other words that the God described in the Qur’an is indeed the same God described in the Christian Bible, and that they are the same God (or one of them) described in other religions or beliefs. This of course could not work unless someone or all of them were straight up wrong in many of their thoughts on who God is.  Even within Christianity there are so many differing views on what the supposed truth is, that it becomes unfair to lump all who use the word “Christian” under the same umbrella of belief (I will comment more on this in the Spirituality in the 21^st Century blog, a much more suitable forum).  My point is to note that it is of an even greater folly to then assume attributes of God based on the actions of his followers, Christian or otherwise.

I think one of the major problems is that our “thinkers” and teachers are no longer celebrated in the public.  Our philosophers are no longer who we look to for inspiration or understanding of what is and what isn’t anymore.  Instead we are left with celebrities, the Mel Gibsons, and rock stars, politicians, and beauty queens.  These of course are not flawless people, neither are the “thinkers” and teachers, but the attention to detail, the striving for truth, the desire to uphold and defend what is real and what isn’t finds itself absent in the list of our celebrated heroes above.  To this I say, please do not base what you think about God, or even on the rest of his followers, based on them (or any one person or group).  It is ever so much more complex than that.  More to continue on all of this for sure.