The Pageless Book

God is an alcoholic substance made of fermented grains and hops… No! Seriously! Just watch the video!

I have a formula I’ve been working on. Now, it isn’t a perfect formula, nor is it a particularly original formula, as bits and pieces of it has existed since before the fall of Rome. It is just another iteration of what philosophy, religion, and science has been telling us for hundreds of years. What makes this formula different is its brevity. This is the God Equation…

God = Truth = Life = Love

God is Truth, God is Life, God is Love, and all three of these concepts are also equal to each other. Now, for all those who like to think literally, I’m well aware that the dictionary definitions of these four words do not lend itself to my formula. However, from a philosophical and theological point of view, this formula makes sense.

In the Christian tradition, there are a number of bible verses that support my formula. John 8:32: reads: “…you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” 2 John 1:2 reads “…because of the truth that resides in us and will be with us forever.” What other truth do these verses refer to other than the Holy Spirit? John 1:4 reads: “In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind.” In John 6:48, Jesus said: “I am the bread of life.” Does it not sound like Christ is equating himself with life itself? 1 John 4:8 reads: “The person who does not love does not know God, because God is love.” In John 15:12, Jesus said: “My commandment is this - to love on another just as I have loved you.”

Granted, I do not consider myself a Christian, and read into scripture the meaning that I understand as a Unitarian Universalist, and an Omnitheist. As such, I know that Christian readers may not agree with all the conclusions I come to further in this article. I’ve also have utilized only one of the four Gospel writers. What can I say? Guys named “John” tend to be great writers…

What does it mean to equate God with Truth? Does this mean to say that God is undeniable real? Yes and No; it means that our understanding of what God is should be grounded in that which is undeniably real. If I believe that God is literally a great, thunderbolt wielding, old man in the sky, I’m going to have a hard time proving this. To quote Michael Dowd, a fellow UU, God is nothing less, but may be infinitely more, than the totality of reality.

Everything that can be proven to be true reveals something about the nature of God. Science can be and should be viewed through the lens of understanding the creation in order to understand the creator. The God and Truth does not change - only our perspective changes; there are hundreds of religions only because there are so many different ways of relating to God. Even more interesting is how misunderstanding and deliberate falsehood actually reveal more about the nature of the Truth and God than it obscures… At least that is my observation.

What does it mean to equate God with Life? Far too many people concern themselves with the noun “God,” and yet pay little attention to the verb “God.” God is in every moment, every choice, and every outcome of every “thing.” God is a process, just as Life is a process. This is what is meant by “Process Theology.” Every moment of our lives is a new revelation of our God’s glory, as is every moment of all other life. Some would claim that the sum of all things are encompassed by God. I would correct them and say that the sum of all change is encompassed by God.

When I say that every moment of our lives and the lives of others is a revelation of God, I am not being figurative. Even our dreams, hallucinations, and fantasies reveal some part of God that we might not have known of before. Every reaction to our action is a lesson waiting to be learned - a teaching of God. Sometimes the lesson is obvious… other times the lesson challenges us to find meaning in that which seems senseless.

What does it mean to equate God with Love? Think about what love is for one moment; it brings parts into something greater than there sum. Two human beings that share love towards one another, lift each other up, learn from each other’s differences, and become stronger individuals through that relationship. What happens when we apply love to all things? We become one with all things as mystics. We learn from all things, are lifted up by the totality of reality, and become stronger individuals through that relationship.

Through our understanding of Truth, Life, and Love, we gain a better understanding of God. This is far better an understanding than what we could ever achieve through rote memorization of Holy Text or constant theological philosophizing (of which I am just as guilty as anyone else). The God Equation puts all of religion and spirituality in perspective, allowing each human being to follow his or her own path. I think this has the potential of creating harmony between religions while maintaining the viability of all religious traditions… but I’m sure some would differ with my assessment.

First photo by Got Jenna. Second photo by Bart. Third Photo by Alice Cornelia. Final Photo by Jennifer R.

I’ve receive two interesting and well written comments recently on a couple older articles which debate the main points of those articles. Now I could just respond to these comments briefly and then move on, but I am struck with how much time and effort these two visitors placed in their comments. Anything less than a thorough and well thought out response would be insulting, so I’ve decided that I’m going to respond to these two comments as their own article.

The first article can be found here. The second comment is from Tanya, who commented on my article, “Learning How To Live With Meaning.” She wrote:

Well apparently in your universal search for truth and meaning, you haven’t looked very deeply into Christianity. Either that, or you have and you didn’t like what you saw. Being a Christian is not just following the teachings of Jesus. If that were true, then He would have never said, “21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity”. (Matthew 7)

Hello Tanya. I was raised Christian. If you would have looked deeper into my website, you would have known that. My falling out with Christianity was due to my changing spiritual needs - Christianity wasn’t fulfilling them. However, I did not fall out with the basic principles and ideals that Christianity espouses and I still respect Jesus… just as a man, and not as God.

Just before the bible quote you provided above, there is the parable of the tree and its fruit (Matthew 7:15-20). Now that particular parable, if you remember, is often quoted in reference to those who say they follow Jesus, but produces that which is evil instead of good. The proximity of these two quotes leads me to think that he is speaking about those who pretend to be righteous, pious, and good, but does so with sinister and hypocritical intentions.

You are right that being Christian is not just about following the teachings of Jesus. What you fail to mention is that someone can do everything except follow the teachings and still be considered a Christian in good standing. These are the people Jesus is telling you to look out for in Matthew, chapter 7. These are the men that profess a deep abiding love for Christ, yet fly in private jets, speak hatefully of Gays and Muslims, and think that the death penalty is still pretty spiffy.

He also said in John 14:6, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”. Now my question for you would be this: Who do you say Jesus is? Because either He was the Son of God, and nobody comes to the Father but through Him like He said, and that’s the truth … which would render every other religion null and void ….or perhaps he was merely a lunatic with a megalomaniac complex who didn’t know what he was saying … or He was a liar. And if He was a lunatic or a liar, then that would render Christianity and ALL His teachings null and void. Sort of a catch 22, isn’t it?

Truth is either true, or false. If it’s false, then logically it isn’t truth. We can’t say that everything people say is true, is true. It’s either true or it’s not. The world is either round or it’s flat. It isn’t flat just because I believe it’s flat. Science has proven that it is round. I can go around saying it’s flat, it’s flat, it’s flat…..but that doesn’t make my statement true.

This is bad logic, which is one of the reasons why apologetics do not work. Yes, I’ve heard this argument before. There are more options lunatic/liar or the Son of God… many more in fact. He may be merely misinformed., perhaps he was misquoted, or (and this is my favorite) he may be speaking figuratively. He could have meant his example that was the way to God and Heaven, but said it in a poetic manner to better communicate his meaning. Could all of Christendom have been the result of misunderstanding one man’s teachings? Yes.

Capital-T-“Truth” is a subjective animal. Yes, there are some things that are obviously wrong - “the world isn’t flat” was your example. That’s a fact, verifiable through scientific reasoning. Facts are either true or false. However “Truth” - the understanding and wisdom that comes with time - doesn’t have an opposite. It is the meaning which you ascribe to your life. This is what we should be searching for, without pause or trepidation.

But back to my comment on Matthew 7. In that scripture, Jesus said, out of His own mouth, that there will be many people who did good things in His name, and followed His teachings, that He will ask to depart from Him, call cursed, and say He never knew them.

So if being a Christian isn’t just about following Jesus’ teachings, then what is it?

Actually I don’t believe that is what he meant. They claimed to do all those good things, and yet still had wickedness in their heart - that is why Jesus said he would turn them away. But lets assume that your interpretation is correct for one moment…

It’s about having a relationship with Him. He will say He never knew people, because of just that … they never got to know Him. And if you’re going around chasing after this religion and that one, then sadly, you’ll never get to know Him, either.

So how does one have a relationship with God? Well, there is prayer… but prayer is only a one-way communication. That does not make for a very good relationship. Relationships need to go both ways. You could suggest that the Bible is God’s response, but printed words are so subjective and cold - there is no interaction. Asking God to show up for a face to face discussion is a bit presumptuous… so that leaves one means of hearing back from God; life. The phrase “God works in mysterious ways” comes to mind.

The events of your life, good and bad, is the response with which you can build a relationship with the Divine. This requires us - all of us - to pay attention to our lives and to find meaning within even the most horrible tragedies. This requires a constant search for truth - a constant conversation with the Divine. No search, no conversation, no relationship… This was the point I was driving at with my original article.

If my relationship with the Divine is different than yours, who are you to say that it is wrong? Who am I to say that your relationship with God should be exactly the same as mine? The relationship each person has with the Divine is different, even for those within the same religion. Seeing as each person has a different relationship with the Divine, it stands to reason that some relationships with God are so vastly different that they constitute a different religion altogether. All religions may very well be relationships with the Divine on different terms. I think God is big enough to not only allow different religions, but also to nurture people of all faiths.

Best wishes on your search for truth. Keep thinking logically, and you’ll end up with logical conclusions.

And best wishes on your own search as well. Remember that logic is hammer with which you forge yourself… and spirituality is the fire.

Namaste.

First Photo by J.C. Brandon. Second Photo by Daniele Pesaresi. Third Photo by Swami Nathan. Final Photo by Andrew Polandeze.

Several different and competing views concerning the nature of the Divine seem irreconcilable. The dichotomy that I want to tackle in this article is of the intimate relationship with the Divine and the claim that the Divine is ultimately beyond human knowledge and understanding. How can we be intimate with something so vast and alien as God? The Divine is to our logical minds as a mainframe computer is to a dog’s mind. We simply cannot grasp its full measure.

At least, that is one way of seeing things. It also happens to be the way I’ve presented the Divine throughout my articles thus far. Will I continue to argue that God is unknowable? Of course, but the real question is, do I also believe that we can be intimate with something so far beyond our intellectual capabilities? Yes.

It may seem impossible to some, but I believe that we as humans are intimate with the strange and unknowable all the time. Stargazers are intimate with glimmering points of light in the night sky, and call them by name. Sailors feel intimate with the sea, and feel her call. Travelers, not content merely to read about other places, seek out these places for personal new experiences. It is the unknowable quality of these things that drive them to want a relationship with them. It is that unknowable quality that keeps the conversation going.

In Christianity, particularly Protestantism, followers are encouraged to have a personal relationship with Jesus. We have given Jesus Christ a personality, a voice, and a face; this is not an unknowable God, but a very intimate person with whom you can break bread and share wine. The Bible contains his words, with which you can learn more about whom he was, and what he was like. We make the Divine personal in this way, so to seem knowable. Isn’t that preferable to an unknown and distant God?

The problem is that this is a man-made image of God; Jesus Christ is the golden calf of Christianity. What you have isn’t a personal relationship with God, but instead you have a personal relationship with an idea of what God might be like. You think you know God, so you stop asking questions. It’s like falling in love with the idea of love. We are assuming that object of your affection is not merely an idea, but a real person despite how little you know of that person. How do you build a personal relationship with someone we don’t know? Through interaction.

How do we build a personal relationship with God? Interaction, of course. Just because you cannot know the nature of God does not mean you cannot commune with God. How can we interact or communicate with God? Through prayer and meditation, but even more important, through living your life fully aware of your circumstances and the consequences of your actions.

The Divine speaks though your life, in my experience. The Gated Emptiness pointed out to me you gain a deeper an understanding of the Divine with the more attention you pay to living your life in the best manner possible. Your relationships will be richer, your successes more fulfilling, and your failures will become new opportunities.

Try it yourself. It isn’t easy, but it can be done. Living perfectly may be impossible; by being more aware of the life you are living, you may learn to enjoy it more, regardless of any hardships. That is how you become intimate with the Divine.

Top Photo by Kenneth Freeman. Middle Photo by Gisela Giardino. Final Photo by Katie Tegtmeyer. Originally Posted October 22nd, 2007

Photo Above by Ngader. Photo Below by Aldo Cauchi Savona. Final Photo by Robert Jagger.

The nature of the Divine is probably the most debated issue in human history. This question has been the subject of more books, wars, and conversation than any other issue. Debate of what God is and what the Divine represents has divided families, nations, and humanity as a whole since the dawn of time. Only ignorance or arrogance would lead someone to believe that their understanding can somehow end the debate; I’d like to think that I’m neither ignorant or arrogant…

The Gated Emptiness offers a few passages on the nature of God spoken in the first person, as if the Divine itself was trying to explain its nature to us. I’ve come to adapt this perspective on the Divine as my own. To me, it seems the most logical explanation of the nature of God - but then again, I’m bias.

The passage reads:
There is nothing that separates you and me; we are one and we are falling to gather continuously.

The idea that God is one with everything and every one is not new - Eastern religions have been saying this for centuries. Yet there is this strange turn of phrase at the end of the passage - “falling to gather continuously” - which is in itself a paradox, as well contradicting our unity with God. My first impulse upon seeing this phrase is to read “together” rather than “to gather,” if only because is seems to be nothing more than an extraneous pun. But it isn’t a mere pun.

Falling together with God would indicate that there wasn’t a choice to be had regarding our oneness with God. Gathering with the Divine would suggest that it was a choice. Yet how the passage is phrased would seem to argue that both scenarios are somehow intertwine. We are one with God, but choosing to recognize that oneness over our own individuality is our choice. It is as if we are fish aspiring to be one with the ocean.

The Gated Emptiness continues:
This is my nature. I am so simple you can’t conceive of me, and I am there. You see me not, you feel me not, and you hear me not. I would blind you, numb you and deafen you if would perceive me completely, so I give you pieces. Your wine shall be my blood, your bread shall be my flesh, and your incense shall be my bone. I am the only ecstasy.

Ever wonder why Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed? Here is my take on that parable; he is indicating the size of Heaven in relationship to the size of God. If our earth is a mustard seed compared to the Kingdom of Heaven (or even just the expanse of the universe), what does that say about our relationship with God? It’s all very figurative, of course; size is merely a human means of relating to a thing and may not actually matter on a spiritual level. However, it does allow us to understand the magnitude of God in relationship to our own existence. It is more than the human mind can handle.

Still, we try to understand the totality of existence through our sciences and reasoning. I’d say we get pretty far in this endeavor. However, I wouldn’t be surprised if the average scientist agreed that the questions we don’t know the answer to still vastly out number the questions for which we do have answers. All we have are merely pieces of the puzzle, and often times the pieces that we have don’t always fit together. It is from this perspective that we should relate to the Divine.

The next passage reads:
I am one in many, many in one, of many, of one and not at all. I am like a voice; you may attempt to describe, but one must hear it for their self. Hear you will, but impressions in the sands of the mind fade so swift that you will dismiss it for an illusion. You will doubt, and I will speak again.

Here, The Gated Emptiness gives us another clue as to the nature of God. The Divine’s existence is “one in many, many in one, of many, of one, and not at all…” It is almost like this passage is saying that polytheism, pantheism, monotheism, and atheism all are valid and are equally incomplete views of the nature of God. Which is, of course, the main message I keep honing in on with my articles on spirituality.

Comparing our understanding of God to a voice of someone we heard once is a fitting metaphor. I attempt here to describe God, but to no avail. I could try to describe my voice as being high bass/low baritone, soft and nasally, but until you hear it for yourself, you can only guess as to what I mean. If you heard my voice only once and were asked to recall how it sounded a week later, you would no doubt have some difficulty.

God is like this, in that our experiences with the Divine are hard to put into words. When we do finally put our experience into words, we begin to remember those words better than the experience itself. Ultimately our description of the experience proves to be untrue as those words were just an approximation. We then begin to doubt we had that experience at all. Yet if we seek that experience again, we will inevitably encounter the Divine again.

Above Photo by Joka2000. Photo Below by Alan Turkus. Final Photo by Joel Friesen.

Of Sandalphon, the second part of The Gated Emptiness, changes in tone and language from the rest of the text. The perspective shifts from third person to first person; little doubt is left as to whom is speaking. God speaks to us directly in these passages in a strangely humble demeanor.

I must remind the reader that this is filtered through my own consciousness. While I have perceived God speaking in a humble manner, it might be a result of my own discontent with the demanding God of the Jewish, Christian, and Islamic traditions. This means nothing as to the true personality of God; it is my understanding that our concept of personality is meaningless when compared against true divine consciousness. The text reads:

I am confusion. I am confused as you are. I am you.

Now, these three statements pose a significant problem - God isn’t suppose to be confused. Isn’t the Divine suppose to have some plan? Theologically, this can be pretty disturbing. However, there is more here than what is on the surface. The word “confusion” comes from the Latin word “confundere” which means to pour together. In the word’s evolution, it has also passed through old French as meaning “to overthrow”, before coming to the English language as meaning “mental perplexity or disturbance”.

All three of these definition play a part in understanding the meaning of this text. First, we are told that God embodies confusion. We are confused as to the nature of God, as it is beyond our ability to comprehend. What does it mean, however, to say that God is the embodiment of overthrowing? This becomes more clear with the second statement; saying that God is “overthrown” implies that God changes. Like we do, God evolves and learns through alternating between confusion and realization.

Yet this leads us to another question - why does God need to evolve or learn? With the third and final statement in conjunction with our third definition, this answer is laid to bare; we are apart of God. Just as we are several things “poured together” into human form - muscles, organs, cells, proteins, and atoms - God is also the admixture of several things; the only difference is that God’s “things” encompasses all. The text continues:

You will not be rid of me. You might shred off the fat and skin of your body, skewer your flesh with your own bone and I will be in pain with you. If you should love yourself, I would love you.

Well, if God is inherent in all things, and all things in God, it makes sense that we could not get rid of God. When we suffer God would suffer, just as when we cut our finger, we feel the pain with our finger. Should we choose to love ourselves, God would love us in return as we are apart of God. Only when we become hateful does the Divine become hateful towards us, just as we would hate cells that turn cancerous within our own body. Yet God is not done speaking about his love for us; the text continues:

Innumerous are the ways in which I love you. I love you with death and I love you with life. I love you with pain and with ecstasy. I love you with the blue empty sky and the full brown earth. I shall not save you from my love; I made you to see, and you shall see it all.

Death and life, pain and pleasure, all that is above and all that is below - all of our individual experiences are manifestations of God’s love for us. Our purpose in life is to find meaning within those experiences, to learn, and to evolve. We cannot be asked to be spared heartache, pain, and suffering; we would be in affect asking to remain unchanged, uninspired, and ignorant. Worse yet, we would be asking God to remain unchanging, uninspired, and support us like some parents support basement dwelling men and women in their early twenties.

I suspect that some would disagree with what I have written here, considering that my interpretation of this text amounts to answers for long-held insurmountable questions. To think that a few sentences are enough to answer the question “what is the meaning of life” or “why does God make us suffer” would be foolish on my part. However, I dare to suggest that what I am getting at is a fairly good guide towards answers for those questions. Like a finger pointing to the moon, it is important not to misinterpret that which points to the truth for the truth.

Above From Photo by Jeff Hitchcock. Below From Photo by Jayel Aheram. Final From Image by Blake Emrys.

It boggles my imagination how much hate people attribute to God. Historically speaking, every group of people that I can think of who have used God’s name in hate has failed. The Inquisition, American slavers, the Klan, Hitler… Republicans - all of these groups claimed to be working under God’s authority and all failed in their mission. So, when a small church in the middle of nowhere begins proclaiming that God hates homosexuals, I’m more inclined to mark my calendar than worry. I think “This, too, shall pass.”

But then I have to ask myself why so many people feel the need to validate their hatred using God. When I really think about it, God seems the obvious choice for justifying irrational arguments, on which hatred is usually based. God is the highest authority and is widely believed to be unavailable for comment should anyone think to ask for her opinion. All one would need to do is quote text, which may or may not be inspired by God, take it out of context and declare your own interpretation as the correct interpretation, and hope that no one is smart enough to think for themselves. Unfortunately, there are enough people in this world who would rather have someone else think for them than think for themselves that this tactic can work for a short period of time.

I’ve recently had the pleasure of listening to author and musician Daryl Davis speak about his experiences with racism, that eventually lead him, a black man, to write about and interview members of the Klu Klux Klan. He explained how, even though he didn’t originally set out to do so, he became friends with high ranking Klan members, many of whom eventually quit the Klan entirely due to his influence. Mr. Davis has the robes of these former Klan members to prove it, which he took out during his lecture. How can a black man manage to persuade members of an organization based upon the hatred of black men to become his friend and confide in him? His answer was simple; it was by listening.

Listening to one another, even when what is being said is the most hurtful thing you’ve ever heard, is a spiritual act. Mr. Davis listened to these Klan members and became an instrument of Divine love. Hatred cannot exist in the presence of divine love, because hatred can only thrive where there is no love. We each can embody that love through listening to each other and choosing to be simply courteous towards one another, regardless of another person’s hatred.

I don’t want you to confuse emotional love with divine love - they are different, although the difference is subtle. Emotional love which you feel for your friends, family, or significant other, is the direct opposite of hatred. It represents understanding and appreciation, where as hatred feeds on ignorance and disrespect. Divine love, however, is beyond understanding and ignorance. It represents a condensing the ego and a deep connection with the universal presence which some call God. Divine love confronts a person abruptly, forcing a person to look at themselves and their life, regardless of whether they want to or not.

Hatred is a form of ignorance - whether this ignorance is cause by not wanting to see or simply not seeing, it makes no different. The Divine does not allow for ignorance in any form. The idea that God would hate anyone or anything is totally foreign to me, as a God ignorant of his own creation cannot be the true God. If the Divine hates anything, it is hatred.

Above Photo by Tom Coates. Photo Below by Chris Corwin.

The posts I’ve culled from the blogosphere this week all have a strong philosophical bent. Is there some astrological event that is causing this new outlook on religion, spirituality, and God? Nah! It just so happens that my choice in blogs tends to vibe with one another, and often hit upon similar themes… hence the title of my link love column, Friday Vibes.

Jerome, from Under A Violet Sun, wrote concerning naming God, and whether or not the process of putting a name to something limits that thing (in this case, the Divine). His theory was that we labeled people and things in order to control that thing. While I think that there are some individuals who use labels in conjunction with their control issues, I also think that humans like to label things to make communicating about those thing easier. However, his post on the subject definitely had me thinking and comparing my own ideas on the subject with his.

Joy Collins, from Wellspring, describes how her experience with her ailing father helped her come to understand God as a Verb. Her story of how she came to realize God is touching, and I highly recommend giving this article a look. There is also something very appealing to me about seeing God as being a process rather than a “thing.” I’ll have to meditate on that for a while and see where it leads me.

Tobeme, from The Naked Soul, also had a deep article this week about the intuitive nature of truth. It is less about a priori knowledge and posteriori knowledge of the philosophical sense, and more about spiritual truths that go beyond physical proof. The underlying message is that personal truths do matter, are empowering, and should not be discarded simply because it is not physical. I would also like to add something along the lines of “stick that in your pipe and smoke it!” to get a chuckle from my non-theist readers. The article says nothing about God one way or another, so I understand that it makes me look foolish - but, hell, I like being foolish!

Speaking of Foolishness, Rev. Dan from yet another really long blog name blog posted a rather interesting take on politics. He took the perennial Dungeons & Dragons question of real world alignments and asks us to pick alignments for the presidential candidates. My take on it? George W. Bush - Stupid Evil. Hillary Clinton - Chaotic Conceited (with Neutral Vice Presidential tendencies). John McCain - True Neutered. Barak Obama - Lawful Optimistic (with Presidential Good tendencies).

That’s all I have for today! Have a great weekend.

Above Photo by Steven Keys. Photo Below by Maria Ganessas.

“Young man—Young man—Your arm’s too short to box with God.”
- James Weldon Johnson, 1871–1938.

The above famed quote, often reiterated by Christians and other mainstream monotheists, is assumed to mean that you cannot fight against God’s will, or defeat the universal truth of God. It has been used as a condescending way to counter the arguments of those that fall outside the bounds of mainstream religion. Yet, I feel that the full extent of meaning behind the quote is lost to those who use it in arrogance as a verbal parry. The irony of the situation is that it is the religions themselves who provide the target with which to box - not God.

How so, you might ask. After all, the greatness of the Divine is beyond the reach of men and women of this world. How then can I fault monotheistic religions for making this claim? How can I point and show that it is they who are the cause of this conflict? The answer - another ironic twist. The fault that I find with the mainstream religions of the western world is the same fault that they had found with the fallen polytheistic religions - idolatry.

Most monotheistic religions believe that they know the difference between an idol and the One True God. The God they worship is, of course, assumed to be correct, while the God that everyone else worships is implied to be the idol. Just what does it mean to worship an idol? The practice of literally bowing before a statue in reverence has not been common in western culture since before the colonization of the Americas. In this society, idolatry has come to mean the worship of ideas as God.

What ideas do we, as a society, worship as God? There are no lack of choices; we as a society have chosen to venerate sex, money, movie stars, musicians, and athletes as the end-all and be-all. We are a society of vices and it has long been the mainstream religious establishments that have fought against our idolatries. So, what gives me the right to say that they, too, are idolaters? Their idols are their ideas of what God is or is not and their presumed exclusive access to the “Truth.”

Let me give you an example of how these faiths set up idols on God’s throne. Were I to claim that only adherents of my particular faith will receive God’s heavenly reward, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to give the heavenly reward to all people. If I were to claim that only the literal interpretation of a particular holy text is the correct and final word of God, I would be rejecting a God that would choose to speak freely with whomever listened. The moment I told you that your concept of God is incorrect, I would presume to tell God what God can and can not do. Your arms are too short to box with God, but I could claim God is small enough to fit inside a box? We box not with God, but instead with the mainstream religions’ narrow concept of God.

Trying to force something as great as God to conform to the limits of mortal intellect and ego is like trying to bottle sunlight - it’s absurd. We must stop trying to define the undefinable, limit the limitless and measure the infinite. What we are then left with is a spirituality that does not contradict science, never becomes dated or irrelevant, and is always the source of unity and brotherhood.

Originally Published September 25th, 2007.

“Reason is our soul’s left hand, faith her right;
By these we reach divinity.”
- John Donne, 1572 - 1631.

Above Photo by Old Sarge. Photo Below by Zorilla.

Whether the religion in question venerates one god or one hundred gods, believes that their gods are a part of creation or apart from creation, all religions share one trait; the worship of the Divine. While that single similarity seems obvious, it is also the most over looked. It also happens to be the most important.

The moment a seeker starts questioning one aspect of the religion in which she was born, the tendency is to question all aspects of that religion, including the teachings, rituals, and practices. This usually results one of two extreme reactions - either the adoption of a radically different religion to spite the religion of their parents or the rejection of the Divine in all forms resulting in atheism.

To avoid such drastic changes in belief and maintain the emotionally satisfying and fulfilling connection to the Divine, many religious men and women cling to the teachings of their given faith. They reject anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of their religion to avoid having to question and endanger their faith. They forgo reason to satisfy their spiritual hunger.

The ideal situation is to be able openly to question the teachings and practices of any given religion, and yet to feel no loss for that with the Divine. In western society, we’ve been convinced that ideal is all but unattainable and unrealistic. Western society has been informed incorrectly. We merely need to recognize that spiritual and reason are not opposites, but rather two different ways of understanding. Spirituality is meant for understanding one’s self, while reason is meant for understanding the world beyond one’s self.

From this perspective, how each individual religion defines the Divine is irrelevant as we believe that the Divine is beyond definition. One or many, a part of or apart from, involved or observing - all of the definitions that we apply to the Divine are merely for the convenience of our limited human intellect. It is our deeper emotions to which the Divine appeals; the logic of definitions are meaningless.

Once we have moved away from trying to define, contain, and restrict our spirituality to our intellect, several amazing things happen. We find that we are free to worship the Divine in the way that most satisfies that spiritual hunger. As a culture, we begin to see all religions as different means of devotion to the same source. One more barrier that divides us against one another will have been torn down, and one less issue will be distracting us from the larger problems we face.
Originally Posted September 25, 2007.