In the beginning of my previous essay, I mentioned that there were two sources of inspiration on my mind. Besides Robert Wright on Bill Moyers' program, the other inspiration was, believe it or not, Rev. Billy Graham's "My Answer" syndicated column in my hometown newspaper. It didn't inspire me because I agree with him, but because he articulated the exact doctrine that I fundamentally refute. He wrote:

    "The Bible isn't just the words of men--it's the Word of God, because God directed its writing...When you read the Bible, therefore, you are reading God's message to us."

     I've read enough of its history to know how the Bible was compiled, edited, had sections removed and other sections added, and was translated from one language to another over centuries, leaving me with no faith at all that God had a hand in its composition. Such a belief is based on a superstition: whatever the result of something is, it must have been God's will--particularly in regard to winning and losing sides in battles over who is to be king or rule an empire. The winner must have been God's choice. With all the rancorous disagreements and the machinations of competing factions, with all the re-writes and deletions and insertions and mistranslations, still, at the end of a centuries-long process, are we left with an extant text that was exactly the way God wanted it to be?

    It's a ridiculous idea. In everything I've learned about God over the last fifty years, there has never been a single indication that this "God's Word" myth regarding that over-touted book might possibly be true. It has always been the decision of flawed human beings to include or exclude various written texts in collections to be regarded as "scriptures," and that inherent fallacy applies to every scripture-based religion in the world. Certainly there are wise and inspirational things written in all of them, but the idea that anything that ended up in a particular text speaks directly and absolutely for God is a huge mistake. It substitutes reading, reciting, and theologizing for the experiential essence of the living Spirit, which is made more mythical than real because of it.

     At best, believers accept on faith, then find ways to sense God's presence and plan in their lives through religious practice or observance. But that sensitivity is tenuous and easily lost, because it's a relationship with (supposed) sacred writings, with theological concepts, with the rituals and trappings of the religion itself. Participation in a service can evoke a strong emotional response often mistaken for a spiritual experience. But is that really a relationship with God?

    In something I read recently, I found I was not the only one with an opinion that religion can actually be a way to hide from God, using scripture, beliefs, rituals and rules to create a structure in which participants can pretend to be engaging God in an obedient way, when it's really a neurotic effort to stave off deep-seated fear. It's a continuation of the superstitions of prehistoric peoples who tried various rituals and sacrifices to appease and calm the gods of thunder, lightning, the wind and rain. If it appeared to work (by coincidence), it was retained in the culture and evolved into a religious rite.

     It's easier to engage an institutional fantasy of God through the imagination than it is to confront the mystery and the power of the real God, whose Spirit lives within us. To know God where He can really be found requires a different approach. It is an individual, personal quest to become spiritually conscious. It requires the suspension of both belief and disbelief, a quieting of the mind, turning the senses inward, and releasing our grip on the web of illusions we think of as reality in this world. Finding "The God Experience" in deep meditation is glorious and real far beyond the imaginings of religious thought, and shows us for ourselves that which atheists deny and religions only talk about.

     At risk of repeating myself (as I often do, sorry), I can understand the indignation of scriptural believers who may be outraged by my refutation of their beliefs. It is inevitable that we humans will find ways to disagree with the beliefs of others; that's why there are so many different religions, and different denominations or sects within them. My purpose is not to disparage or ridicule, but to advance the cause of truth. I am merely one small voice of dissent saying, "That book is not all it's cracked up to be," against a stupendous torrent of Bibliolatrous preaching in America every day of the year. How often do Christian Bible-believers or Muslim fundamentalists rage at others for not believing in their book as they do? Those who proselytize their absolutism in a way that is contemptuous of the beliefs of others have no fair basis for complaint if their message meets resistance and rebuttal. If they feel insulted by that, then, oh, the irony.

     The world must be deemed big enough for all of us, regardless of our beliefs or lack thereof. Differing ideas can be discussed and debated without stooping to name-calling, bigotry and hatred. If we can get along despite our religious differences, we will be closer to the "moral axis of the Universe," and fulfilling God's will regarding "Peace on Earth, good will toward men."

da