Freedom of Thought

"And I will war, at least in words (and - should
My chance so happen - deeds) with all who war
With Thought;- and of Thought's foes by far most rude
Tyrants and Sycophants have been and are.
I know not who may conquer: if I could
Have such a prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation."

- Byron, Don Juan, Canto 9.24


Further to my last post on here, actually both of my grandfathers were Methodist ministers: & my maternal grandfather, his father was a Methodist minister too. So I've got Protestantism running deep in my blood.

This Protestant heritage in me manifests itself in the following ways, among others:

The primary importance of the text.

The focus is on the text at hand, the attempt to understand as far as I can what the text is saying, including the context of its composition -

& then, if this understanding is something that applies to my own conduct or outlook, applying it.

Text has consequences in real life.

This understanding of the text is reached by reference to authorities on the subject if appropriate, but emphatically NOT in slavish subjection to them.

I am happy to hear what the priest* has to say, but I do not require the priest as an intermediary between me & God, or between me & the truth as I see it after due study & reflection.

If the views I arrive at displease the priest, or contradict the authority he represents, then that is the problem of the priest & the said authority, not mine.

In other words, I have the right, & in fact the duty, to make up my own mind on any questions whatsoever.

The more important the question is, the more this applies

e.g. the existence of otherwise of God, the meaning or the lack of it in human life & the Universe.

This Protestant legacy makes me suspicious of authority & of hierarchy - suspicious that they are based essentially on imposture. In my case this applies especially to academic & cultural orthodoxies.

However, I don't oppose for the sake of opposing, & insist on decrying everything. If I think some element of an orthodoxy is correct, I am happy to admit it.

The point is that there is nothing - NOTHING - which is exempt from my critical scrutiny, neither in me nor in the world.

My search is for the truth as I see it: & I don't rule out any potential sources, & I'm not bothered who else agrees or disagrees with my conclusions; often conclusions which are likely to be temporary & subject to revision, abandonment, inversion.

As my experience increases, my point of view changes: & if it stays the same on the surface, it deepens below that surface.

Having discovered some fragment of the truth by patient & detailed research & reflection, it is part of my Protestant heritage to then feel the requirement to proclaim it: however popular of unpopular it proves to be, however palatable or bitter to the taste. This is the Protestant imperative to preach, & bear personal witness.

The hero-figure of this urge is surely John the Baptist:

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."

(- Mark. 1.3)

My urge to preach finds one of its expressions in this blog, in Bulletins.

*The figure of the priest is introduced here in a synecdochical capacity, evidemment.

Jahweh: His Remarkable Rise

"Let's reinvent the gods, all the myths of the ages
Celebrate symbols from deep elder forests."

- Jim Morrison, 'An American Prayer'


Jahweh or Jehovah, if I may name that god so familiarly, has had a remarkable journey from obscure Bronze Age tribal deity to his present exalted position - if we identify him with Allah - as Boss of 3 of the world's major religions.

It's like the spread of coffee from its home in Ethiopia to its status now of being consumed throughout the world.

The spread of an idea is like the spread of a commodity. People pass it on because they like it & because it suits them, & other people new to it accept it & incorporate it into their lives for the same reason. At least, that's when it happens benignly. Less happily, ideas & commodities are also spread by force & conquest of course, & here resemble the spread of disease.

I cannot accept that Jahweh/Jehovah/Allah/God the Father/God the Trinity is the one true God. How can the Trinity be simultaneously 3 gods & 1 god anyway ? Rowan Williams might know; he is apparently one of the leading experts in the world on the Trinity. But at first glance it doesn't seem very likely; & I strongly suspect that once Occam's Razor had been to work on the reasons why the Trinity is in fact 1 god, they would be left looking pretty tattered.

I recognise Jahweh as a god, but not the one true God. I reserve the right to worship some or all of the Celtic, Norse/Anglo-Saxon, Greek, Egyptian & Romano-British gods & goddesses, all of whom are in my cultural inheritance as an Englishman and a European. For me personally I would include Woden, Thor, Aphrodite, Demeter, Isis & Osiris. More primally, I reserve the right to worship directly the Sun, the Moon, the Stars, the Sky, the Earth & the Sea, Sacred Animals; & to experience the sacred & the numinous wherever I find it.* You may say this is rather a mish-mash, but isn't Christianity, in terms of its ritual & iconography, just such a mish-mash ?

If we take Christianity & Islam together (I can't find a reliable figure for the current total number of adherents to Judaism), Jahweh/Allah has 3.7 billion adherents who regard him exclusively as the one true God - 2.2 billion Christians & 1.5 billion Muslims. He hardly needs me as well.

In this connection, you will be acquainted I suggest with the terms polytheism, monotheism, atheism, agnosticism, deism, animism, & pantheism. But have you heard of the term henotheism ? I stumbled across it while reading about religion in the Classical world. It means you have one god who you personally, or as a tribe or a cult, venerate in particular, but that you are perfectly happy at the same time to recognise the validity of all gods & godesses whatsoever. A position of total tolerance. It strikes me as supremely civilised. And dangerous to the exclusive claims of Christianity, Judaism & Islam, which is why I think you never hear the term. It's suppressed as an option. The options you're presented with are the ones I named at the start of this paragraph, which are in fact the possibilities of religious belief & practice viewed from a monotheistic perspective, one that regards monotheism as true, right & natural.

When it comes to Christianity, I don't hear the term henotheism. The terms I do hear are heresy, schism, anathema, excommunication & idolatry.

On the subject of idolatry, I find it singular that the Christian Church, East & West, condemns idolatry so roundly while at the very same time practicing it so enthusiastically. It's odd sometimes to see a copy of The Ten Commandments set up in a church which is simultaneously full to bursting with graven images. The proscription of graven images in The Ten Commandments is explicit & insistent, & Muslims & observant Jews in general follow it's obvious & intended meaning. The proscription of graven images from The Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 is worth quoting in full because of the stress it is given, & the prominence, being the Second Commandment:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the the third & fourth generation of them that hate me;

& shewing mercy to thousands of them that love me, & keep my commandments.

Now, in a pagan world, not having graven images is a ready & highly visible way to distinguish your religion from all the others around you, who precisely do have graven images which they venerate.

The Christian Church defends its use of graven images by asserting it is not idolatry to have them, because the worshiper does not worship the image itself but rather what it represents. This is sheer sophistry. The proscription in the Second Commandment is perfectly clear & straightforward. There have often been iconoclastic movements & controversies in both the Eastern & Western Churches, & quite rightly so.

The Christian use of images is an excellent example of the fact that mores are vastly more important in terms of their effect on human behaviour than the official morality that people are supposed to be following at a given time. Mores shape almost everything, morality virtually nothing.

A final thought on Christianity. It has always struck me as funny, and so human, that the opposing factions in Christianity call themselves Catholic, meaning universal when it is nothing of the kind, & Orthodox, meaning 'Right-Believing', or 'Just so you're clear, We're Right & Everyone Else is Wrong.'

It's not Sacred - it's sacred to you !


With thanks & respect to Xenophanes, William of Occam & Voltaire. Further reading: The Lost Gods of England by Brian Branston.

*Before I wrote this, I had no idea I was such an old hippy. But let it stand .....