Ensaio: The Non-Existence of God

The idea of God is a total linguistic misconception. The notion arose out of the Judaeo-Christian assimilation of pagan cultures, for none other than political reasons – basic communication breakdown. The word ‘God’ in English comes from the Old High Germanic ‘Got’ which would designate a particular rank in divinity, in relation to say spirits, or daemons, or nymphs etc.. The idea that came to be known as ‘monotheism,’ advocated the existence of only one ‘God.’ Many perceive this as being a choice between the many Gods that is just superior and disqualifies the existence of the others. This, however, has logical complications. The very definition of the word ‘God’ implies pluralism. In this way if one were to ask, ‘did you pray to God today?’ the natural answer would be to ask ‘which God?’, just like one cannot say ‘I chose colour to paint my walls’ without specifying which one. So it is nonsensical to say that one prays to ‘God’ without specifying which one.

This is not to say, however, that one cannot pray to אֱלוה (Eloh), which is a word that according to its Hebrew definition encompasses the notion of the one omniscient and omnipotent source of all Divinity. Note, that even in the Hebrew, so-called ‘monotheist’ theology, divinity is not limited to ‘Eloh’ and even the very notion of ‘one ominiscient and omnipotent source’ has 72 or more different names and ‘forms of relationships with human beings’ with hierarchies and varying circumstances of manifestation.

The word ‘God’ generally translates to ‘Deus’ in languages that stem from Latin, in its casual usage. The word Deus is the accusative form of Ζεύς (Zeus – the highest of the Greek Gods), which implies plurality and hierarchy, again, by its very definition. So how can we translate the notion of the Hebrew ‘Eloh’ without falling into a linguistic-logical trap? The Neo-Platonists had it figured out even before Christianity forced its way prematurely into sloppy translations and cultural subversions. They, whose master studied directly with the Babylonian Mystics (the source of the tradition of Hebrews), already called ‘The one omniscient and omnipotent source of all divinity’ simply ‘The one omniscient and omnipotent source of all divinity’ or ‘The One’ for short. In a world of many names that point to different conceptions, the Hebrew solution to the complication of naming a force that cannot be named is by calling it השם (HaShem – the Name).

Now according to said Babylonian tradition, ‘The One,’ or ‘The Name’ manifests itself in a plethora of different ways and has an army of messengers who enforce His Will in the worlds below (including this world). This is something that mono or polytheistic cultures all agree on. So the scholar asks himself what the real difference is, or if there is any difference at all and was it just a necessity for political division that spurred the nomenclature sabotage. Now what does it mean to have an army of messengers, a pantheon of Gods or Angels. Again we are clothing a pre-existent term with alien theological baggage. Aγγελος (Angelos) in Greek means simply messenger, just as you would converse with your friend in Yahoo Angelos in Ancient Greek internet. So in order to enforce the political agenda of a uniquely ‘monotheist’ theology, the word was directly translated from the Hebrew מלאך (malach), which has a much more sophisticated meaning – while it does indeed denote ‘messenger’ it actually connotes and shares the exact same principle that the Pagan ‘Gods’ fulfill, which are messengers or representatives of a hierarchically superior deity. Not to mention its closeness to the word for King, which the Greek term doesn’t share. In Hebrew מלך (melach – King) is just one letter away from מלאך (malach – Angel) which suggests the same root. Then there’s אֱלהים (elohim), probably the word most commonly translated to ‘God’, is actually in plural form and according to perhaps the most respected Hebrew commentator Maimonides, “I must premise that every Hebrew knows that the term Elohim is a homonym, and denotes God, angels, judges, and the rulers of countries”. So it seems our paragon of monotheism is just as hierarchically plural as any other religion. What is one is the system of nature or existence and the unopposed will that surrounds it. To be monotheistic is to recognise the singularity and coherence of the system of existence – to acknowledge perfect equilibrium between a multitude of forces. In this way, it was relatively common among the highest initiates of any of the ancient pagan cultures to be monotheistic.

In relation to Kabbalistic or High-Mystic archetypes, any and all religions whether their political clothing be ‘monotheism’ or not, respect the idea of singularity and hierarchical plurality. Never in the history of civilization was a theology adhered to without these two principles acting side by side. The fact is that we perceive the Universe as plural. We interact with elements that fall under the categories of preferred, avoided, or neutral. Now in order for our actions to be guided, there is an illustration of theological hierarchy. Each theology from different cultures expresses this hierarchy in different ways and focuses on different aspects. However, since it is possible to assume that all have the dichotomy of singularity versus hierarchical plurality expressed within, we can assume that what each theology is trying to express exists in and of itself in some attainable format. This was also explored by Plato, who exposed the fact that human limitations do not signify the non-existence of higher forms. That is, just because you and I do not agree on a definition of ‘love’, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a force attracting human beings and all things one to the other. Similarly, just because religions fight with one another and fail to express the singularity and hierarchical plurality of divinity, it does not imply that there aren’t such forces at play in the Universe. Still, our habits of old entrap us and make social monsters of us. We use words like ‘God’ to condemn the Gods of others and a simple exploration into language reveals the basic similarity between our points of view. We all want what is best, though each one of us has a different definition for the word ‘best’. See my article on ‘Idol Worship,’ where I explain what problem arises from forgetting the equilibrium in the forces of nature, or the only real valid condemnation of ‘polytheism‘.

Deixe uma resposta

%d blogueiros gostam disto: