‘God’ – as in ‘Do you believe in God?’- is a hard worked little word, and can be taken
to mean many different things.
I mostly use it in this blog to refer to an unseen sacred numinous
principle, an ultimate reality; not a being, and certainly not possessed of any
qualities that we could imagine. But I’m aware that I do also use the word to
refer to the aspect of this numinous principle to which I pray. (For more on
this see the post 'Full Circle - Thou, It, I, Thou')
Karen Armstrong, (whose book ‘The Case for God’ should be
given free by the Government to everybody attaining the age of 35, and anybody
younger who asks for it,) maintains that in earliest times many humans were
well aware that no ‘being’ could be responsible for all they experienced, but
worshipped and respected ‘Being’: “a
fundamental energy that supports and animates everything that exists…. You
could not see, touch or hear it but could only watch it at work in the people,
objects and natural forces around you.” Whatever this was, it was impersonal
and transcendent.
Perhaps this is why the natural forces thus animated were themselves
anthropomorphised as gods and goddesses in many societies, for example: Agni,
the god of fire, Apollo the sun god. I used the term ‘gods’ in this way in my
post ‘Honouring the Gods‘, and modern psychotherapy
makes much use of these as a way of identifying the unconscious driving and
pulling forces within human nature. Buddhism, which is unconcerned as to whether
there is or isn’t an unseen sacred numinous principle – Buddhism is an agnostic
religion- nevertheless makes reference to the ‘realm of the gods’. These gods are
powerful superhumans, enjoying a life of luxury, rather like most the Greek
gods and goddesses on Mount Olympus. Like them, they can interfere in the life
of ordinary people but, also like the Greek gods and many other pantheons of
gods, they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.
When I was taught Christianity, I was taught that those who
worshipped pantheons of gods, or one in particular of a pantheon of gods (Zeus,
for example) had got it wrong, and that only monotheism was right.
However, one couldn’t help noticing, as one made further investigations into
this, just how like Zeus or any other ‘sky god’ or ‘high god’ the Christian God
seemed to be.
Unlike ours, many societies did not (and do not) have a problem
worshipping a pantheon of gods, while being absolutely clear that these gods do not
represent ultimate reality. To quote Karen Armstrong again “There was no
ontological gulf separating these gods from the rest of the cosmos; everything
had emerged from the same sacred stuff.”
I should say here that I do think that Christianity in this country, the UK, tends towards fundamentalism (inclined towards a literal reading of the bible). I remember the outcry when an Archbishop expressed the view that it really didn't matter whether Jesus was born to a virgin or not. However, I consider myself a Christian, because I use Christian symbolism and myths in my meditations and prayers, and I'm completely happy to pay my dues to any number of 'archangels' representing various principles such as 'truth', 'compassion', 'courage' and 'serenity' without ever getting these confused with the sacred unseen numinous principle; the ultimate reality. I think that fundamentalists have completely failed to grasp the actual point of religion.
Millenia ago it seems the "Upanishadic sages [in India] were among the first to articulate another of the universal principles of religion....The truths of religion are accessible only when you are prepared to get rid of the selfishness, greed and self-preoccupation that, perhaps inevitably, are engrained in our thoughts and behaviour but are also the source of so much pain." (Armstrong.)
I would be very interested to know to what others reading this are referring when they use the word ‘God’.
Reproducing a comment on Facebook about this post by Louise Woods (with permission): "The human/?Western habit of reductivism via anthropomorphism is an unnerving one: not only must we refashion g/God(s) in our own pretty unimpressive image, warts and all, but the cumulative Russian-doll reductions of Genesis - and for that matter the privative hierarchy of the trinity - witness a collective preference for a god who does precisely the same thing. Strikes me as a failure of imagination."
ReplyDelete