The Nature of "It" page one
	The Creator has had many handles: Creator, God, Jehovah, Allah, Higher Power, Jesus, Heavenly Father, to name a few.  Yet, the Judeo-Christian tradition is familiar with the concept that this entity’s name can not be uttered.  The performer, Prince, used this concept in his legal maneuverings regarding publishing rights.  Since the symbol for his name was not able to be spoken, he was known as, The Performer Formerly Known As, Prince. For The Creator, a name that is not able to be spoken is the least of it.  Along with this reality is another; for all practical purposes, The Creator is also, unknowable. Relating to an entity that is unknowable and possesses a name that can not be spoken is a real trick. My first image is that of a dog and its owner, but very quickly, the dog changes into maybe a goldfish, a guinea pig or hamster, perhaps a flea. This whole dilemma is what was spoken to in the short story about the pendulum and time.  [See:  Pendulum, Glass, the Hand Brothers and Time] A pendulum is limited in its ability to comprehend by its structure and experience.  It is confined to terms and experience it understands, which isn’t much.  This finiteness makes understanding the concept of time an impossibility for pendulums.  This would apply to the Model-T and Henry Ford, the light bulb and Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers and their airplane, man and his God.  A pendulum cannot pronounce the word, time, much less understand it.  The same principle applies to Model-T’s, light bulbs, airplanes and man. Speaking the unspeakable and comprehending the incomprehensible is oxymoronic.  Since I have the last three syllables of this word pretty well established within my personal self concept, I’ll give it a try. In deference to The Creator’s incomprehensibility, the quality of not being able to be known, it is, perhaps, useless trying to explain what The Creator is.  So, I will start by suggesting what The Creator is not. One practical consideration is; The Creator is neither male nor female nor some unique combination of the two. For some time, I viewed The Creator as having both motherly and fatherly attributes.  This is functional, but audacious.  In light of this, the pronoun, “It,” would be appropriate; perhaps, IT, would be more appropriate, except then, The Creator would be confused with internet technology.  Actually, the handle, The Creator, is a bit assumptive.  It feels a bit like O.J.’s leather glove, but it is a necessary practicality if we are to communicate about, “It,” The Creator. For starters, I dare say, The Creator is not intelligent. “It” is not stupid, either. Intelligence, or the lack of it, is one of The Creator’s inventions; creations.  Intelligence is a human characteristic.  It is a characteristic we can grasp; a concept we are entirely able to relate to.  It is only natural we should attempt describing The Creator in terms we are familiar with and that possess a meaning we understand.  Unfortunately, this sort of behavior cuts The Creator down to our size and gives a considerable boost our already inflated concept of Self..  At times, I have found myself thinking; The Creator is ultimate intelligence, really smart and all.  That seemed big enough, for a while.  It no longer does.  Whatever describes the creative genius “It” possesses, intelligence is nothing like it.  Intellect bears no resemblance to the ability The Creator possesses.  Whatever realm of existence “It” inhabits…there I go!  Existence! The simple concept of existence is another rather ingenious invention unique to The Creator’s creation.  Existence is something we have a general awareness of, it is a foundational quality which knits us neatly within our reality.  It seems entirely reasonable to assume this quality onto our Creator, to squeeze “It” into this form fitting union suit; a nice tidy box. We so easily slip into modes of defining which shrink The Creator’s reality down to a size we can comprehend. Children do that.  Adults need to be aware when it is being done.  We glibly establish The Creator’s name is not pronounceable, and then just as glibly slap name after name upon “It.”  We so easily accept the incomprehensibility of The Creator, and then describe “It” with terms like, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, holy, majestic, wise, just, and so on, thinking these concepts are somehow big enough. The human species is so adorable. I doubt The Creator is good, as we are able to understand good. The Unconditional Love we are able to comprehend is a shabby pittance laid aside whatever it is “It” possesses.  Our ability to comprehend limits our ability to comprehend.  Our mental capabilities are more than sufficient for our species to function, but wholly inadequate when attempting to comprehend The Creator.  If The Creator is, good, it is a goodness far beyond our ability to comprehend; so far beyond that it no longer qualifies as, good.  If The Creator is, Love, it is a Love far beyond our ability to comprehend; so far beyond that it no longer qualifies as, Love.  The Creator’s nature is unspeakable and incomprehensible.  We can speak of good and Love.  We can comprehend good and Love.  Therefore, Our Creator is not good or Love, but something entirely beyond our ability to imagine. The created cannot comprehend its Creator.  I think that is a fairly solid principle. Whether it is the caveman and his wheel or Michelangelo’s, David, or Henry Ford’s, Model-T, or man, and “It,” The Creator is far beyond the created’s ability to comprehend.  And still, we try to comprehend.  We are so sweet. Okay, “Moses,” you’ve got us out in the wilderness; now what?  What is the nature of, “It?”  Oh, eat your manna and be quiet.  Let me think.
		Procede to The Nature of "It" page two Return to Theology Content Page Return to Main Content Page