A Different Way of Thinking About It I have adapted my This I Believe essay from a series of short essays I wrote a few

months ago on my Facebook wall. The fact that different religions point to similar principles cannot be used to set one above the other. Instead each of these religions points to a truth deeper and more profound and more universal than any one of the religions that points to it. I believe all mythological systems are merely guideposts; aides to allow finite human minds to begin to grasp the infinite. That is to say I believe it is arrogance to say that Christianity (or Islam or Buddhism or even Atheism), a finite and human system of mythology and religious organization, is the only religious system, or lack thereof, that can contain the truth of an infinite being that set the universe in motion and yet can somehow be loving and personal in his/her manifestation to some. It's like saying that one can only experience G-d in a church building: only while people can obviously tell that a physical building cannot contain an infinite being they can't understand that a human system of dogma (dogma by definition is finite because it defines certain things as acceptable and certain things as deviant) can't contain an infinite being for precisely the same reason. Let me put it to you another way. So far as we can tell the universe is infinite i.e. it has no outer limit. Scientists have come up with several different systems of measuring mapping and documenting the cosmos. Those systems are not the universe, nor do they really contain the universe. They are simply a system of arbitrary symbols to help finite minds grasp something infinite. Systems of mythology, be they Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Druidry, serve the same function when trying to measure, map, and document the infinite worlds of the nonphysical planes, their denizens, and ultimately the being that brought them all into existence.

Religionsa.k.a. mythological systemsserve as a system of arbitrary symbols to aide finite minds in understanding something infinite. They are not G-d and cannot contain G-d any more than the quadrant system actually contains the stars. What they do provide are useful tools in understanding G-d. The reason they all contain universal principles is because they are all ways of mapping principles that already exist. I am not denying the concept of absolute spiritual truth. I am denying the human minds capability to comprehend absolute spiritual truth. I am saying that religious systems are useful tools in beginning to understand absolute truth; however, they cannot themselves be absolute truth because they are systems which, by definition, are finite because they seek to define the inconceivable. I am saying that absolute spiritual truth is beyond our comprehension because it is outside what finite minds are capable of comprehending. I am saying absolutely that all systems of understanding are relative, including mine; they are arbitrary by definition because they seek to put finite bounds on something infinite. Arbitrary is not a way of saying wrong as so many of the followers of Abrahamic religions seem to think; a meter can't be wrong, but it is by definition arbitrary. It is useful because it helps us understand the world around us, but it is still arbitrary. I am a druid and I am the first to admit my choice of beliefs is finite, arbitrary, and relative, but thats what I so love about it: it doesn't seek to be the end-all-be-all in systems of comprehending spiritual truth.