All That Is

When I was a child I was told that God created the entire universe. He, and of course God was a man back then, created all space and time and anything else that is in existence today; even the man-made items because man was created by God. Being a child I accepted this viewpoint. I would imagine a divine male doing some fantastic hocus-pocus and bringing all that is into being (or at least its most basic constituents.) I knew that God existed and created the Universe, however was left with the question: Who created God; How did He come into being?

I would play this thought game, an experiment in imagination, where I would imagine God prior to making real His creation. Then I would try to imagine the circumstances that could bring God Himself into being. I pictured a black void with some cool electric looking radiation coming together to form Him or simply seeing Him starting to manifest out of an endless void. But no matter what scenario I encountered I could always disprove it by noting the means in which I saw God manifesting himself are all means which god would later create. If he generated Himself out of electricity I knew it could be so because God created electricity. If he manifested out of nothing I knew it couldn’t be so because nothing (voidness) is still something and it could only be created after God had made it so.

For a long time I sat, discontent, knowing that no matter how hard I tried I could never determine a cause for God; never know the reasons or the mechanics of His coming into being.

Alan Watts put forth an idea of God that helped put a little clarity and understanding into my notion of God. His idea?

It is impossible and useless to talk about God.

At first this might seem a little incredulous and insulting. It puts in the face of all people tied to religion. Clergy make their money, they secure their future and the future of the church by professing to know what’s really going on. People seek them out for guidance based on the fact that they know how to accord human actions with the desires of the Almighty. In my opinion, however, the idea of “unknowing” ascribed to God is actually the most true and honest idea to have about God.

Watt's posits that in order to talk about "things" we must define them. This is easy on the mundane scales. We know that a cup of coffee is different than a stapler and from a dog. There are certain distinguishable traits that make it easy to differentiate between two things. We define something, not only by ascribing certain traits to it, but by saying what the thing is not. For example, you know that I am not you, at any given moment you are experiencing different thoughts, emotions, and we have a different history.

You also know that you are something different from the surrounding environment. The outside world operates based upon, cold, rational laws, while people follow social patterns and have some degree of free will. Everything is defined by what it is not.

So by defining things we draw a boundary around it, we box up the thing saying that everything on the inside of the boundary is what the thing is and everything on the outside is what the things is not. Easy, right?

This line of logic breaks down once we start trying to define God; defining the All. If God is the Ground of Being, the Essence in which all of reality flows out of, then by what definitions can we ascribe to Him, or Her, or It. We see here that God is the box that contains all boxes. But where is the box that contains that box? Once we start trying to define God, to put our finger on what It actually is, we find our self in a hopeless paradox. One that is never ending; once a new box is described another new box must be created to contain that box, then another, then another, into infinity.

Therefor, I posit, that God was never created; It always was. He is not eternal or infinite because these are measurements in time; God stands outside of time. He existed in space and beyond space. He does not exist yet he does not not-exist, he is beyond being and non-being. He is the doer of all things though he does nothing. He is the resolution of paradox.

There is a quote that sums up this idea perfectly: "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we CAN suppose." The definition, the true understanding, of the Universe, of the "All That Is," will never be established (at least not by the human mind).

Christianity vs. Democracy

Christianity vs. Democracy

Fundamentalist Christians living in the United States must live with some serious cognitive dissonance. People who are ideologically like the former president really intrigue me. I am not speaking of neo-cons per-say, but specifically those who believe it is their duty, bestowed upon them by the Almighty, to spread democracy around the globe.

This is interesting to me because democracy is at complete odds with the type of Christianity in which they believe. Democracy entails equality of all citizens in all matters; in basic rights, in the law making process, and every other aspect of society. And, to be truthful, this is not that bad of an idea. The United States was founded on the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and for this to be possible we must live the belief that we are all equal. That each individual’s happiness and security is vital and worth protecting.

When we take a look at these Christians, namely fundamentalist and bible literalists, they make it obvious that they seek to spread their version of democracy to those “enslaved” to their cultural, traditional way of life. These Christians who believe it is their duty, as if they are knights serving their king, to spread the influence of their ruler; democracy. The thing is that the have already made your decision for those they seek to liberate and free. They preach democracy and freedom of choice, but they have an ultimate outcome; their choice. Their way of life.

The point is that you cannot think that the best way, the best form of government, is a democracy when you believe the highest order operates as a monarchy.

A reconciliation must occur and it can only happen one of two ways:

1. We accept that Monarchy, and submission hitherto, is the best form of governance.
2. We accept that Democracy, and freedom, is the best form of governance.
   

The founders of the United States obviously had their opinions on the matter. By establishing a democratic republic they effectively liberated themselves from financial slavery and life-long oppression under a monarchy. They knew, as we do to this day, that it is the individuals’ right to be free and live a life of happiness. And as long as the law was laid down from a single source, liberty and happiness would only come to those who pledged allegiance to the controlling body. Our founding fathers wanted more for us. They wanted all citizens of the new republic to have access to happiness and freedom regardless of their political ideology. They knew this was the undeniable right of each human being.

If we take a hard look at the religion and way of life that Jesus taught, rather than the religion about Jesus, it becomes immediately clear. What Jesus preached was equality amongst all humans. He did not preach submission to a monarch; an all knowing, all powerful, giver of edicts and laws that must be followed. Indeed he advocated submission to the highest force, the All Powerful; un-adulterated Love.

During his ministry he did not associate with the heads of state or the ruling religious elite. He lived his life with the people who had been forgotten by society, the people who did not share the rights and freedoms given to the ones who submitted to Roman domination, the ones who had no say in how their life should be lived. He gave a voice to those who could not speak for themselves. He performed the miracle of bringing back to life, reintegrating into society, the untouchables. Jesus did not discriminate saying “those who believe in me (or my father) are the ones deserving of recognition.” No one had to submit to his authority, or that of the creator, to receive love, people were free to choose to receive his blessing of warmth and compassion. Jesus preached a truly democratic way of life, where is was the individuals right to choose what was best for them and their happiness.

Just because people do not practice freedom the way in which we Americans do, does not mean they are not truly free. We can see that what these hypocrite “christians” are really spreading is a form of economic monarchy which accords with their belief of how the Universe actually operates. Where democracy is degraded into a freedom to choose from which multi-national corporation to buy from. They have decided that submission to the king, corporate America, is the highest good.

I have always wondered: what would happen if the people of these nations, being taken over by corporate greed, voted us out of there country? Could we justify invading them again? Could we not say that democracy has triumphed; the people have made their educated choice to keep their way of life over accepting a new corporate monarch?