The holy is that concept which defines and distinguishes a religious from a nonreligious act, idea, or thing. It is common to all religions and absent in everything nonreligious simply on the basis of that definition. But how do we determine what is or is not holy? It is that which we are humanly incapable of comprehending, not on the basis of limited knowledge or capacity on our part, but rather because it is and has to be that which is completely outside of, beyond, and other than everything we know or can know. It exists in an entirely different way, on a different plane, governed by different laws, and is, by definition, incomprehensible by us. Therefore when we are seeking the holy, we are seeking that which is not and cannot be.
And so we developed heirophanies - physical or at least comprehensible things to embody and represent holy bodies. At various times and in various traditions, nearly everything imaginable has served as a heirophany: celestial bodies, plants and animals, people, water, fire, clothes and artifacts, and even specified behaviors, words, and designated places. Because these things are easy to wrap our minds around and understand, and easy to teach to the children, we present them as bodies through which the holy can be perceived. But where is the line drawn between a heirophanic translation of the holy and sacreligious idol worship? Obviously the line can only be drawn inside the mind of each individual, and his own interpretation of the holy, and if he really understands the difference between the holy and the earthly thing that represents the holy. This brings us back to what it means to truly believe. Natural laws would impy that the holy remains constant whether everybody believes and understands it or not, just like the laws of physics apply whether you know about physics or not, but we've already established that the holy is not governed by our natural laws. Now I could get real existential right here, but you know where that one goes, so let's try something new.
The Hebrews (Jews, Christians, Muslims) worship a god originally named Yahweh meaning "he who is called "I am.'" So, using Otto's definition of the holy as that which is entirely other than what we know to be, then for God to be, is for it to be in a way that is not, and if it is in a way that is not, then clearly it is not and cannot be. There is only one way that things can be, and that is for them to be in a way that is, if they are not that, then they are not at all. So here's where an existentialist would say that the holy most certainly exists and is simply that which each individual imagines it to be, and any religious would say that the holy most certainly exists and is simply that which his doctrine imagines it to be. But what I'm getting at here is that based on the principles of logic, the holy does not and cannot exist, purely on the basis that even if it did, it wouldn't, because of how it is defined.
So if God is not, and I believe it is not because the definition of God is not, and you believe God is, despite that God is defined by being not, does that make me the theist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
