Unsophisticated Untheology

There's a good post over at Greta Christina's, discussing a certain kind of hypocrisy. In one sense, she's dead on. It is hypocritical to demand that the "sophisticated theology" of one's own religion be examined before rejecting it, while rejecting plenty of other religions without knowing even their basic premise, let alone their theology. I agree with her completely on this. It's very close to the "Outsider Test" promoted at Debunking Christianity.

My problem is that this does not address any sort of universalist claim. So let me lay out my very unsophisticated untheology.

1. Something exists worthy of being described as Divine.
2. Different cultures have perceived and interpreted this Something differently.
3. This Something can still be experienced today (the classic "spiritual/mystic" experiences)

That's it. That is the extent of my untheology. Anything else I say is pure speculation about the nature of the Something. In this view, all the so-called holy books were attempts by humans to try and codify this Something, and perhaps even bend it to the human will. To my way of thinking, trying to capture the Something in words is rather like trying to catch the ocean in a teacup. "Those who know, don't speak. Those who speak, don't know."

And Those Who Haven't Learned Better Yet, try to explain anyway. Only... there's no point. It's like trying to explain how to breathe. So I'll just mangle a quote (I don't remember who said the original): "A single earthly thing, fully experienced once, is enough for a lifetime."