In the history of mankind, there have always been some

who are presumptuous enough to tell others about the

nature of God. But this is not to say that all contributors
to the Bible (which is revered by some to be the revealed
Word of God) are in the same boat.
========================================================================

The Golden Calf of Aaron

Author: Peter M.K. Chan
An excerpt from Soul, God, and Morality
Copyrighted and published 2004
All rights reserved
===================================================

First of all, let me concede that when

confronted with the wondrous workings of material
nature and the starry heavens (or what
astrophysicists nowadays are telling us about
anti-matter, mysterious dark-energy as well as
supernovas and black holes), few are exempt from the
gut feel that perhaps, there must ultimately be more
to what meets our empirical and scientific eye. And it
is this ‘more’ that often drums up the concept of God.
After all, the origin of the universe (with Big Bang in
particular) has to be accounted for. For those who
think that ‘nothingness’ is already a boundary
concept, the universe will have to be construed as
having brought itself out of nothing (due to some
unfathomable quantum fluctuations perhaps).
From where I stand, what that indicates is that
the God question is often decided upon on ground of
inclination rather than reason and fact. This is also
why when confronted with the suffering and weeping
of many animate lives, human ones in particular, all
one tends to ‘see’ is the blind amorality of 0ature. On
the other hand, in the more joyful and sanguine of
moments, many have also found it natural to say that
the whole of creation, the parts that are conscious and
the parts that are unconscious, is singing the glory of
God. With respect to such poetic of moments, all I
wish to warn is that this is where one has got to be
careful. Having the concept of God and know how to
use it is a far cry from having cognized God, much
less to have known Him.
Of knowledge claims about God, let me point
out that as far as ancient Judaic guidelines are
concerned, God is not to be understood in terms of
anything. That is what the phrase ‘I am that I am’ (or
Jehovah) means. It should be observed that on the
basis of this strict admonition, even to conceptualize
God as Love, Light, and Truth should also not be
allowed (as Zarasthustranism first did—not the ew
Testament, mind you). It was rather unfortunate that
most of those who came after had to submit matter of
principle to the desire of the masses, and
conceptualize God not only as the golden calf of
Aaron, but as being in three persons—one of whom is
taken literally by some to be the begotten of God the
Father.
I, for one, do not understand why it is really
necessary to conceptualize God in such precise
human terms. Would it not be less sacrilegious to
think of Him as having three aspects rather than a
multiple personality of sorts with what sounds like
reproductive functions as well? Besides, if the three
Persons in God are all eternal, it is difficult is see how
any of these eternal Persons (existing without
beginning and without end) could really have come to
be ‘begotten’ by any one of the other two. However,
as it is not the habit of theologians to dwell too deeply
into such conceptual discrepancies, these muddled
conceptualizations have also continued to be mistaken
by their listeners to be the nature of God.
 Further, in characterizing God as infinitely
good and powerful, traditional theology has also
invited the problem of suffering. It is that if God were
good and powerful, why would he allow Satan to ruin
his original blueprint known to all as “the Garden of
Eden”, and why does he allow all the cutting of
throats (physical and psychological) as well as natural
disasters? This is before complaining about the
eliminative fury of the wrath of God attested to
throughout the Bible -- the most impressive of which
were the ten plagues unleashed against the people of
ancient Egypt as depicted in the book Exodus, and the
doomsday scenario as portrayed by the book of
Revelation. Why didn’t He just take away the
Pharaoh of Egypt in the first instance, and eliminate
the sway of Satan over mankind in the second?
With respect to such a string of metaphysical
questions, there are only two honest ways out. One is
to say that the decision of the Boss is not to be
questioned. As creatures, we must take whatever is
given. That is equivalent to admitting that we are not
really in the know. Another is to adopt the position
taken by the author of Job (one of the wisdom books
of the Old Testament) when he conceptualized God
and Satan as bargaining equals. This belief in the
eternal struggle between Good and Evil, as I am sure
readers are aware, has also been popular with many
polytheistic religions. Its function is to serve as a kind
of intellectual dumping ground for inexplicable
problems such as the ones just highlighted.

And if I may further point out, this steak of

what looks like a bi-theism of sorts, or the
co-existence of God and Satan in the religious scheme
of things, has also come through in the 0ew
Testament. It says that Satan had even tried to bribe
Jesus (believed to be the second person of the triune
God) into submission, and that the eventual triumph
over Satan and its dominion over mankind is only to
be accomplished at the world’s end (Revelation
Chapter 20). What that means is that God was not
really thought of in the Bible as being supremely
powerful over the affairs of man (at least not up to
now). It also means that those who had thought that
God is infinitely powerful and claimed to be in the
know were actually making things up.
As to those who have come to hold that the
Bible is the revealed Word of God, all I would like to
say is that it may be more respectful to believe that
God writes 0ature rather than books as we do, or
having to commission anyone to ghostwrite for Him.
As a matter of fact, this was more or less also the view
of Apostle Paul (check with Romans 1:20 if you must).
And if I may further add, neither should any puny
human mind with mere human concepts be so
arrogant as to think that it is really equipped and
qualified for the job (see footnote 6.1 below for
further comment).
0ow, for those who are still too stubborn to
take no for an answer, let me also refer them to the
words of Solomon, reputedly the wisest of them all.
Toward the end of Ecclesiastics (another wisdom
book of the Old Testament), he also said in no
uncertain terms that the way of God is not at all
knowable. This is not very different from the view of
Apostle Paul in the 0ew Testament when he confessed
to the fact that as all the prophets before him, what he
thought he saw were but vaguely as against some
dark mirror of sorts. And that as such, his kind of
theological understanding would also have to be
discarded eventually for the real thing (I Corinthians
13: 9-12). For what I can understand, this is nothing
less than a warning to all those who have drunk from
this same well not to tell people otherwise.
Of course, most believers of Holy Books are
not really concerned about such finer prints. They
would accept any theological characterization for as
long as it promises to save their personal souls,
especially if all it takes is to say yes, also known as
salvation by faith alone (please see footnote 6.2 for
further comment).

============================

Footnote 6.1: On the Bible as the Word of God

The doctrine that the Bible is the Word of God was very much a
product of the Protestant Reformation. As to how one is to know
that this doctrine is true, the usual answer is that it is because the
Epistle of Timothy (another Pauline document in the ew
Testament) says so. However, a careful reading will show that
what the statement really refers to (as per small prints therein
regarding its original meaning in Greek) are “all scriptures that
are inspired by God”. It does not say that the Bible as we have it
today is the Word of God. As a matter of historical fact, since
the ew Testament was in those early days nowhere to be found,
all that could be made to show is that the Old Testament was
inspired by God, i.e., not the Bible as a whole inclusive of both
its Old and New Testaments. Besides, it would not take long for
anyone with some basic understanding of science to see that the
Bible is only able to reflect the primitive world-view and
cosmological understanding of its day.

Footnote 6.2: On Salvation by Faith Alone

For those who are not already in the know, let me point out that
the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, as expounded in the
Epistle to the Romans, was actually rejected by James (the
brother of Jesus) when he said (in the Epistle of James) that faith
without work is dead. Nor is there any evidence from the
Gospels to show that justification by faith is what Jesus had in
mind. Quite to the contrary, his parable of the Ten Maidens was
definitely on the side of James rather than Paul. It is rather clear
from the parable that Jesus was of the view that the door of his
Kingdom will be closed to those who do not have oil of good
work in their lamps.

Peter M.K. Chan is the author of The Mystery of Mind (published

2003), and Soul, God, and Morality (published 2004). Recently, he has
also competed any work titled The Six Patriarchs of Chinese
Humanism (not yet in print). For details regarding the above, please
visit http://sites.google.com/site/pmkchan/home
http://sites.google.com/site/ancientchinesehumanism/home
===================================================