Life Will Answer, The Book: Conceptualizing A God # 5



I recently published an eBook entitled Life Will Answer. It’s an exploration of life, religion, and the tenuous connection one has with the other—at least as has been defined to date by the various theologies of past and present-day believers.

I don’t pretend to be a religious scholar to any measurable degree. I am at best a casual observer of some religion-based behaviors, but given that I have also authored a book discussing those matters, perhaps that makes me more than a casual observer.

It does not, however, make me a believer in the deity so many different religions have decided is the One And Only. [It seems we’re full to overflow of the One And Only, so perhaps It might better be thought of as the One And Only According To Whoever Is Speaking Or Writing At That Time; otherwise we’re dealing with the Many and Only Except For All The Other Onlys]

So in conjunction with that work, I’d like to offer some observations on related issues of the day.

~ ~ ~

Recently, via OpEdNews [link here, offered by a contributor identified only as E.J.N.], I came across an article [1] whose authorship was at least confusing if not shrouded in purposeful concealment. The extensive site featured scores of essays and related writings—too involved for me to dive in then, or now—but I do plan on re-visiting it to try and learn more about the motivations and inclinations of those responsible.

The article offered a broad overview of what purports to be mankind’s relationship with “God” over the centuries. It was fascinating in scope and effort, and contained some interesting, insightful, and occasionally contradictory assessments about man’s relationship (or not) with Whatever is responsible for Everything. The overview offered nicely summarizes many of the most prominent notions and beliefs attributed to the Deity of choice.

In a recent post of this series, I shared a quote from the above-referenced essay which included in part this observation:

[W]hile divinely inspired religions were all derived from the same Source God, they are different in the way they express the will and the nature of God.
Religions are also different because their founders, and/or the author or authors of the texts that became the scriptures of religions, were only human. They included not only their descriptions, explanations and interpretations of what they received or realized through revelation. In certain cases they also included their own judgments and opinions, and some of those were inaccurate or even wrong, or were later interpreted in inaccurate and erroneous ways by followers.

I then suggested that this seems to leave the doors wide open for just about any and every interpretation imaginable (and unimaginable, too). A quick check of the headlines will confirm that this is precisely what is happening now, and has been since mankind began its pursuit of an understanding about Life, its origin, and purpose.

In my book, I state that defining whatever version of the Source offers the most meaning to anyone is in fact what we are all “supposed” to be doing. There are no independent rules Out There Somewhere which we are all required to follow, no “God’s” will (or “Allah’s” or Insert Preferred Deity Here’s, either) to whose adherence we’ll then be judged in some later existence. A second quick check of the headlines will confirm that there are as many convenient Will-oriented interpretations and justifications for actions as there are snowflakes.

Isn’t it sort of peculiar that a One and Only Deity would have set up a system with so many conflicting assessments about what It supposedly does or does not mandate? Isn’t it strange that beyond an attempt to understand the core existence of this Whatever, there are countless definitions and interpretations?

If there was a One and Only Will we’re all supposed to be obeying and are then judged upon, shouldn’t it be pretty clear by now what that is? If It such an all-powerful Deity, wouldn’t it have the ability to make that Most Important Set Of Rules obvious? If It is taking delight in all of the different interpretations and justifications for all that we do—including some genuinely horrific acts presumed to be as It directs—then shouldn’t we be looking for a Better Deity?

This line of inquiry devolves back to the problem I first spoke of when this series began: we’re creating not only some anthropomorphic Deity, we’re then struggling to understand what kind of a relationship we’re required to have with it. Given the innumerable definitions and guidelines and assessments, is it any wonder most major conflicts have as their genesis those varying interpretations?

It is through us that God’s will is done in the world and when we do truly good works that are to the benefit of humanity, God’s will is done. However, Man has free will and can choose to ignore and betray God, and Man can fool and delude himself and justify himself by thinking and believing that he is actually obeying God and doing the ‘right’ thing.

Why is one man’s—or one group’s—interpretation and claim to infinite wisdom and knowledge any better or more sound than an another’s? If this Source is “unfathomable,” etc., etc., and we’ve relied since the dawn of man on any number of humans to define all of this, then who is right? Who among us “knows” anything about It? What if the Nigerian nutcase now in the news is the One, and the Deity’s will is in fact that young girls must be kidnapped and sold? [God help us if that’s true!]

Why is there a “will” to be obeyed in the first instance? That’s simply one more anthropomorphic need which this Deity apparently requires. If it needs anything at all, then It’s not quite as Grand as we’ve been led to believe. Why a “betrayal”? Such notions do little more than deflate any other-worldly attributes of this Magnificence and turn It into nothing more than some larger version of a disappointed or emotionally wounded human.

What if we just accept that there is some Magnificence which served as the Source for All, and that because such an entity would of course have to be something fairly spectacular Itself—and incapable of definition or understanding by any measure of human experience—we might want to re-consider our struggles to abide by rules conjured up by our lesser peers from the past?

My book suggests no less. We come to this Life for reasons beyond our understanding, and we do so equipped with our own unique blend of talents and interests and desires and motivations. We judge whether the outcomes of our efforts are good or bad, and we are responsible for the quality of the lives we lead. That’s the “gift.”

We are free to make of our lives whatever we choose. Life simply Answers.

~ My Photo: sunrise at Long Beach, Rockport, MA – 08.22.05

[1]; What Is The True Nature of God? And How Real Are Man’s Concepts of God? (This article last revised 4.29.2014) Copyright © 1983 – 2014