Someone: Heya bro, you free on Sunday morning?

Ra: Nope.

Someone: Oh, so… which church do you go to?

Ra to Self: Huh? Did I mention anything about going to a church?

= = = = =

Right, I studied in mission schools from kindergarten to Junior College. I have been to church countless times, but that does not mean you should assume that I go church on Sunday mornings.

Fine, I am going to talk about God. Wait a minute, what is a Buddhist like me doing, trying to discuss God? For the record, Buddhism is atheistic if you accept the meaning of that word to deny the existence of an external entity that governs over us. Before that, I have to set a few disclaimers. Mainly because I know that there are some very decent Christians who read this blog and I have no intention of offending anyone. Basically, I just want to do my bit in creating understanding between various philosophies. Hence, I will only discuss based on the commonly accepted tenets of Christianity while acknowledging that there is great diversity of understanding within the Christian faith. So I may generalize a bit here and there.

Actually, it is really difficult to talk about God because it is pretty clear to me that every individual conceptualization of God is not uniform. Since the time when humans decided that they are no longer monkeys, humans started worshiping all kinds of times, from trees to rocks to the sun and the moon. And yes, monkeys and donkeys too!

But as society matures, many religious ideas cease to work and have to be replaced.

There was an Abraham’s God, a strict father, a creator, a protector and punisher, a giver of law. This God required Abraham to sacrifice Isaac and authorized quite a bit of killing.

Then there is Augustine’s God. This one inherited many prevalent ideas from the mighty Roman Empire and judged all humanity based on Adam’s original sin. Humans are fundamentally flawed here.

Next is Michelangelo’s God, a personal God as depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. This concept helped to liberal humanism. This god lives, judges, punishes, sees, hears, creates and destroy like us. The only liability I see is that we may assume that this god loves what we love and hates what we hate. The seed of discrimination is highly probable to grow here.

And there is also the omnipotent God which is really difficult for some to reconcile. If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, then he could have prevented all the sufferings in this world. If he cannot, he is impotent; but if he can but choose not to, he is not compassionate. Maybe one can argue that it is all a test and so forth. Those who passed the test may agree with you, those who fail will throw **** at you.

And then there are some who are beginning to argue that God is not apart, but an integral and fundamental part of the human being. This eternal and truth that resides in us is the source from which we can draw compassion, wisdom and courage.

When I heard this latest definition, I was like; this is starting to sound very familiar. This perspective is highly consistent with Buddhism. We merely call this the Mystic Law instead of God because, firstly, this is not personified being, and secondly, the name God in its traditional definition, does evoke an image of a personified being.

What happened long time ago, was that when Jews and Christians and Muslims looked to the heavens to fill their spiritual void, Buddhists dug into the depths of their own lives. I have a “God”. But because it is not a personified being but a Law that governs the rhythm of the cosmos and all phenomenon, I call it the Mystic Law and its name is Nam-myoho-renge-kyo instead of Yahweh.

So, am I still an atheist? You decide.