THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WANT to extend on a wonderful article by Colin Gyles dated July 28, 2004 and entitled, 'The roots of religious and political intolerance'. In it he hinted at the concept of God throughout religions as being more or less, with only slight variations, the personality of a supreme dictator who rewards obedience while punishing insolence to his edicts.
Gyles also questions the reason for condemning despots like Hitler who were merely modelling 'God'. Now, I am no professed atheist, only an existential and religious philosopher who must agree totally with Gyles and, also, add that this seems to be proof of the reverse adage: "Man has created God in his image and likeness". It is said that, "if there was no God, man would have to create one'.
VALIDITY AND VERACITY
It seems indeed that this is what man has done. Now, I am not discrediting the validity and veracity of holy books, let alone our precious Bible. Maybe it is the (mis)interpretation of them, in particular the concept of God, that I (and Gyles) chide. It seems we fashion these concepts to our purposes. This is why the theological/philosophical premises/questions arise: 'Can God create a stone he cannot move? If evil exists then there is no god or is it that he is neither all-good or all-powerful'.
The feminists then come in with the charge against the use of the masculine pronoun while the sceptic talks of the 'death of God'. This leads people the options: (a) there is no God (b) he is a Mindless Force (c) he is a doting grandfather in the heavens (d) he is an angry monarch (e) he is a self- sacrificial/ever-forgiving man-god.
The one we select shapes how we live our lives. Will the real One stand up or, if not, will somebody give us the answer?!
I am, etc.,
N. ALEXANDER
nic7lex@hotmail
