“The African understanding of God was that it was the only and all-in-one energy force that created and simultaneously was all energy in the universe. This understanding recognized the God force as the source of all, the being responsible for all and the multiplicity of energy configurations in the universe that are not from God and that are not God.” Dr. Francis Cress Welsing, “The Isis Papers: The Key To The Colors” (pg. 171)
“Yet my study of the history of religion has revealed that human beings are spiritual animals. Indeed, there is a case for arguing that Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus.” – Karen Armstrong, Introduction to “History of God”
Often where most see duality, I see a singularity that supposes a dynamic flux. I will not ever stop questioning the existence of master designers, but I will probably never stop denying the faith I have in a glorious existence. My thoughts here are not to attack or support any religious organization. Although I do note that organized bodies tend to make for easier bids at political and social capital, even if you saw me at the head of one, my most true beliefs about the nature of a godhead — or its antithesis– would probably still be uniformly divergent than every individual under my influence. However, I do remain viligilant in the furthering of my ability to conceive of various forms of spiritual configurations. As well as staying as equally obsessed with the development of an articulation that can accurately address the questions and dislikes I have with all of the belief schemata presented to me so far.
“It is impossible to prove this one way or the other. There have been many theories about the origin of religion. Yet it seems that creating gods is something that human beings have always done. When one religious idea ceases to work for them, it is simply replaced.” – Karen Armstrong, Introduction to “History of God”
One of my major qualms with the ideas expoused in the theistic tradition is this concept of the almighty father. Now, this might be replaced with the almighty mother in some places, but my traditional peeve is that I am being asked to believe in an anthropological reality that intervenes. Even in what might be defined as a pantheon, in greek myth, we look at a character like Zeus, and the immediate problem ensues: how often is Zeus cast as the malefactor and even scornful punisher of humanity. In the writings of the Bible, we are asked to reflect on a godhead that sits upon a throne and his son is called, ‘lord’. Both lead the knowledgeable to consider the feudal systems, and practices of royalty of European origin. Beyond the extremely patriarchal overtones suggested, it is this need to be governed by some order of authority that strikes me as inappropriately conformist and blind to the politics of any greedy manipulator. The arbiter of what may or may not be the words of God weild an absolute authority of the faithful. Further, there is this heirarchy of forces that I would rather not spend my entire existence fighting. I have enough to deal with here on earth concerning powerful hegemony, lest I waste my last breathe in this cause, I’d rather not waste too much of my imagination pondering my strategies against the powerful after my demise.
Any one familiar with my writings knows I take issue with ideological sycophancy. And hopefully one can percieve right away that I don’t base what I can’t prove on any essentialist notions of fabric weavers or divine pot makers. Nor do I base what I can’t prove on any existentialist notions of hate-filled worlds that must be concurred and objectified.
I believe in what we are referring to often as spiritual notions. I just don’t find it in my psychological needs to present my Self a worldview where some “mean ol’ man” is guarding over me, or playing strength games with my internal fortitude. I do not believe with the supposed contrarian of the classroom that my analytical abilities are any more or less sharpened by a renouncing of what the Kimitians called ‘NTRS’ or what the Latins called ‘Numina’. I do not find it in my own experiences within my frame, or within the confines of the Afkan(Afrikan-Amerikkkan) ecology(my personal culture), that speaks to a reality that is not infused with that sort of electro-magnetic psycho-social energy. By whatever nomenclature, I do recognize that something exists beyond my ability to concretely possess it in terms empirical. In essence, regardless of what arguments, for or against, my core intuitive thoughts are that this is just a chic ideological posture for certain academics to pose their pretensious “I-can-be-contrarian-too” cards.