While no one can prove the existence of this being, no can disprove his existence either - people claim all the time that they talk to him and that he talks back (kinda, sorta) - who am I to doubt their experience? I know, those of you who have dealt with me in the past are just waiting for me to say that those who believe in his existence are stupid, or deluded, or...something else nebulously negative. No my friends, I believe that there are such things as spirits and gods, deities and geists of all kinds, and if I believe thus, how could I deny that the god of the bible also exists? Well, I don't. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that there's any kind of proof, or that I actually do anything about it, just that I concede the possible or even probable existence of the god who English-speaking Western Civilization refer to with a capital "G".
(pause while those who really know me wonder if I've gone off the deep end and like Agrippa have almost been persuaded...)
Belief in the simple existence of an entity does not guarantee that I believe everything that is said or written about said entity. For a lot of people, what they believe about the biblical god is naturally derived from the bible. But what is the bible but, at best, a collection of books, letters, essays and myths setting down what many individuals believed, experienced or speculated about their deity? Parts of the Old Testament are very similar to the creation myths and tribal origin stories of others peoples. Some are heroic legends of the great men (and occasionally women) of a certain people. Still other sections are wise sayings or songs and poems praising the god. the New Testament starts with four oft contradictory accounts of Jesus' life, followed by letters from early leaders, also frequently contradictory. Looked at objectively, the parts of the New Testament can resemble tracts by competing factions attempting to win over the populace to their view and refuting their opponents. In fact, the very early history of Christianity is replete with competing versions of the faith, all with their own literature. One justification for apostolic succession and the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility was that there were so many writings representing different ideas about Jesus and God that some doctrine had to be promulgated to blunt the influence of circulating gospels and epistles, all which claimed authorship by people who knew Jesus in the flesh.
Other believers in the biblical god set their own parameters for who their god is and what he does, completely outside those set by the bible and by established Christianity. These people often express distaste for organized religion and formulate their own picture of the deity that they share with the churches, but he is often described as completely different than how biblical literalists describe him.
My point (or one of them anyway) is that declining to worship a certain deity or to believe all his press does not mean that I deny the possibility of his existence or the validity of the worship or belief of those who do.
No comments:
Post a Comment