I wouldn’t say that the words of scripture are insubstantial, because “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart”. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV) The Christian does have firsthand experience of God when encountering him in scripture, because we have the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus said “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26 ESV) So in scripture we have a solid foundation for truth, understood through the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
In contrast, none of the methods you mentioned above have certainty of the truth of the revelation given. Meditation can mean a broad range of things, and thinking deeply on God’s word is commended in scripture, but just trying to come up with ideas of God from your own mind will quickly lead you astray. Hallucinogens are often illegal, and can obscure your senses in unhelpful ways, but everything seen in such hallucinations is likely to come from your own mind. Sex within marriage is a good thing, but it is not a path to see God; thinking that could lead you to worship sex or the person you have sex with, both of which would be wrong.
Good point. But for me there is a big difference between a lemon and God. Many have seen a lemon and know what the word is referring to. Nobody or maybe few have seen God but many use the word. So the relationship between God and the word “God” must be different than that between lemon and the word “lemon”.
As far as I understand, there is no “actual God” (like “actual lemon”) because God could be thought of as the creator of Actuality.
But firsthand experience is the bedrock of knowledge. It delivers the stuff of reality.
Words are relatively insubstantial. They only refer.
To prefer the latter over the former is to be lost in a fog, listening to your own echos.
I wouldn’t say that the words of scripture are insubstantial, because “the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart”. (Hebrews 4:12 ESV) The Christian does have firsthand experience of God when encountering him in scripture, because we have the Holy Spirit, of whom Jesus said “the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” (John 14:26 ESV) So in scripture we have a solid foundation for truth, understood through the teaching of the Holy Spirit.
In contrast, none of the methods you mentioned above have certainty of the truth of the revelation given. Meditation can mean a broad range of things, and thinking deeply on God’s word is commended in scripture, but just trying to come up with ideas of God from your own mind will quickly lead you astray. Hallucinogens are often illegal, and can obscure your senses in unhelpful ways, but everything seen in such hallucinations is likely to come from your own mind. Sex within marriage is a good thing, but it is not a path to see God; thinking that could lead you to worship sex or the person you have sex with, both of which would be wrong.
Consider the difference between an actual lemon and the word “lemon”. Consider the difference in depth and substantiality.
John 1:1 is kind of at the heart of that, explains how god comes about with words, ideas.
Good point. But for me there is a big difference between a lemon and God. Many have seen a lemon and know what the word is referring to. Nobody or maybe few have seen God but many use the word. So the relationship between God and the word “God” must be different than that between lemon and the word “lemon”. As far as I understand, there is no “actual God” (like “actual lemon”) because God could be thought of as the creator of Actuality.
A man sees something strange and impressive. He tries to describe it to his friends.
But the thing is strange. His friends have never seen it or anything like it. So it’s difficult for him to convey what he saw.
He says “it’s like this”. He compares it to something everybody’s seen. He uses metaphors.
But what is he really conveying? It is arguably the illusion of understanding.