|
Excersus XCII: In the Name of Generalized Love
When I describe myself as an atheist, it is a linguistic statement. It is saying, "Language can't meaningfully describe the type of creatures and attributes you are bandying about and, therefore, no matter what you say, you are necessarily in error." This is especially true when it comes to what the word "Love" might mean in a divine context. If you ask a believer to define it, you get this circular stream of Religious Magnetic Poetry ("His Love is that which, through and with the covenant of sacrifice, becomes Lovingness Through Surrendering Redemptionhood...") that only serves to highlight how bad theism is at what it aims to do. Divine Love, in a polytheistic setting, makes some degree of sense - it's the love of a monodimensional, mostly selfish being - just like us! So our word "love" is a useful touchstone. It is an entirely senseless word to use with reference to an omnipotent monotheistic god. To say it is, effectively, to say nothing. Christianity is a 2000 year quest to package a null content in a haze of Nearly Sensible Gerunds.
- Count Dolby von Luckner
|