It’s important to note that belief in a “Supreme Being” isn’t confined to monotheistic faith. There is considerable evidence pointing towards such a concept in many cultures (see: Andrew Lang’s “The Making of Religion” and Wilhelm Schmidt’s “The Origin and Growth of Religion”  , with such terms as the absent gods, higher gods, the sky gods being used to describe such an entity. G K Chesterton describes the sense of the “final altar to the unnamed god” fairly succinctly (if a little misinformed in his choice of examples) in “The Everlasting Man.” Indeed, Hindu faith can be interpreted as a monotheism hiding inside a polytheism (all gods being aspects of Brahman. The analogy doesn’t entirely work because by worshipping an aspect of Brahman you are worshipping Brahman - same logic as any trinity but extended over a million beings rather than three), although that isn’t doing the complexity/simplicity of their faith full justice. So I guess you could rephrase the question, not as “are other gods to be seen as spirits, false gods or demons,” but as “what must the unnamed god/’Supreme Being’ be like, to be viewed in such a way by cultures who have myriad other gods?” The main point being: the concept of a “supreme being” re-experiences itself in so many other cultures as to be unavoidable, be they monotheist or polytheist (or something else entirely).
As to what I think of other gods? I will always applaud the instinct to worship, the nobility of man/woman kneeling to what they understand to be their lord. I always find much more that is beautiful in worship of an external god/gods to worship of the self. Shit: I even share a certain brotherly love with football fanatics (many faith/worship parallels - and a hell of a lot of prayer!). As we covered in the Out, Vile Thing topic, there could be numerous sources of these gods (be they gods, animal spirits, demons - not an exhaustive list. I’m tired and lazy and caught up in Godspeed...!). Indeed, something not covered is whether any of this exists in an objective sense at all. As to whether the form of the God has any bearing, logic would dictate that the concept of the “Supreme Being” or “Being Greater Than Which None Can Be Conceived” is considerably wider and encompasses much more than specialised deities. And yes, other gods can be just as important to the worshipper as this being is to those who choose to worship it.
I’m sorry if I have offended anyone by identifying my faith with this being. My understanding of my God has always been exactly that description: a “Being Greater Than Which None Can Be Conceived.” Could I be wrong? Yes. Could I be right? Yes. Would someone who had a deeply personal relationship with the Animal King of Bears or Freyja describe their god using that definition? I don’t know, but I would guess not (as previously discussed, I would imagine that individuals within the Hindu pantheon could be viewed in that respect, if not immediately with specific worship practises, but overall in the context of Brahman).
As far as practises go (magic or petitionary prayer), no-one on this thread has adopted an either/or stance - rather, we all seem to be saying “both/and.” It was AE who said that prayer seemed to work best with this entity. Has this topic been derailed by a discussion about the “Being Greater Than Which None Can Be Conceived?” In hindsight, maybe. Am I the only person here willing to entertain the possibility of its existence (apart from the topic starter)? Did I misunderstand the original post (it seems pretty hard to read wrong)? If you’re out there, Arbiter, please extrapolate further.
(...expressionless gets ready to dodge rotten fruit...)
[ 11-09-2001: Message edited by: expressionless ] |
...Sigh.
