THE SUPREME AND THE IMAGES OF GODS AND DEMONS
 
We shall not enter the theodemonical arena
in which polytheists, monotheists and atheists
compete for the irrelevances of the true faith.

So far as the all-neutral supreme being is concerned
we recognize its value and significance as a symbol, but
we do not need to know
whether it exists
in the actual world.

So far as gods and demons are concerned
we do not maintain that there is no god or demon, but
we reject gods and demons or their images
for what they represent
in the province of norms.

We do not worship any particular god or demon
because the worship of a god or demon is
the recognition and perpetuation of exclusivist ideology.

We do not worship the supreme being
because every purported worship of the supreme being is
the worship of an inferior being.

Typical of theodemonist ideologies is, firstly, that the 'positive' principal beings (namely gods) are worshiped or said to be loved, and secondly, that the adherents are expected to unconditionally believe in the eternal existence of those principal beings. The latter may also apply to the 'negative' principal beings (or demons). If there is believed to be only one, or a highest, 'positive' principal being, it plays the role of a supreme being and is named "God" in this language. The belief in the true existence of such a supreme being is in general an absolute prerequisite for genuinely adhering to monotheist denominationalism. Not believing in the existence of such a god is not believing in the monotheist doctrine itself. That is why the leaders of such ideologies cannot very well tolerate any doubt about Mono's existence. Since they preach the primacy of the authoritative it is their own, earthly authority which has been doxastically derived from that of the 'Supreme Being', and which therefore depends on it.

Throughout this Model many reasons have been given why the all-neutral supreme being is no god as conceived in theist systems of thought. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being is not necessarily concrete or abstract, not necessarily human or superhuman, not necessarily a person and not necessarily male. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being did even as a person never consider, and does even as a person not consider, one people, land or town as 'er special own, or as a people, land or town which would be 'more equal' than all others. Unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being did even as a person never demand, and does even as a person not demand, the extermination of nonadherents or other human beings that 'e would hate too much. And unlike the god of monotheism in particular, the all-neutral supreme being did not have, and does not have, an exclusive relationship with the male members of the ruling class of a certain kind of human society as reflected in terms such as King and Lord.

While the existence of the all-ananic is disputable but irrelevant, the existence of the all-nanaic is as indisputable for us as that of a god for a fervent theist. Yet, the important difference with theist ideology is now that the existence of the all-nanaic is not automatically assumed to be eternal. As its continued existence is only needed until the state of all-neutrality, or the least unneutral state possible, has been attained, the eventual neutralist ideal is the non-existence of the all-nanaic. Such cannot be said of any god! Theodemonists also want the nonexistence of the devil or demons, to be sure, but with respect to those principal beings they want their immediate nonexistence, because they are not even believed to have a function for the time being.

If the creator denotes the whole of all creative beings or forces, then this 'creator' is part of the all-nanaic (if it is not to be a destroyer). But the 'creator' is not a supreme being that would be higher than the average human being. The nanaicity of the 'creator' is basically the same as the nanaicity human beings can display themselves, for the all-nanaic embraces, or can embrace, both the 'creator' and mortal human beings. Such a concept of the creation of our world cannot be found in theodemonist creeds.

The all-ananic is not a god, among other things, because it may not really exist (or because we are allowed to believe that it may or does not really exist). The all-nanaic is not a god, among other things, because it may not eternally exist, tho it does exist at present. Another important reason why neither the supreme nor the inferior, principal being is a god, is that neither one can or must be worshiped. We know that the all-ananic can not be worshiped, and we also know that the all-nanaic should not be worshiped, since we should not honor (nor dishonor) according to the norm of nanhonore. Unlike theists who erect temples --whatever they may be called-- to worship their 'Supreme Being' --whatever he may be called-- or other gods, neutralists are not allowed to build a place of worship for the all-ananic or the all-nanaic, for honor and dishonor are alien to the all-neutral supreme being itself or 'imself. What they are allowed to, is to assign loci of denominational representation; that is, to dedicate certain places to the symbols of ananicity and other places to the symbols of nanaicity.

It is one thing to say what qualities, attitudes or actions are, or would be, supreme, good or right; it is another thing to claim that one and the same primary thing would be involved in all of them. But too often the supreme being is, or has been, equipped with an artificial and gaudy collection of attributes, some of which might go together and some of which could never belong to one and the same outfit. Especially monotheist religions love combining the supreme being and the creator in one divine being. But a primary thing with such a concoction of attributes does not exist in the light of our veridicalist model. On this model there does not even exist one primary thing that comprises everything that is nanaic in the universe, let alone one primary thing that comprises both everything that is nanaic and everything that is supreme.

What comes, perhaps, nearest to the traditional concept of a god in the fundamental symbolism of neutral thought is the notion of a nanan. A nanan does not only exist, it may be highly beneficent and very powerful. Its existence does matter too in that its nanaicity is relevant to a particular form of neutrality or to neutrality in general. A nanan can also have a special relationship with a particular people, region or place, just as it can have a special relationship with a particular mode of neutrality or facet of inclusivity. But such a nanan is always one of a multitude of nanans. The 'pannanaon' of 'gods' acting in favor of neutral-inclusivity is practically inexhaustible. To take one of its members and to regard it as a god, because it has been/is/will be so extraordinarily good in a particular respect, or for a particular class of sentient beings, is in itself no deadly sin. It is when such a god (or group of gods) is claimed to be the sole one, and when the attributes of such a god (or group of gods) are said to be perfect in themselves, that theism degenerates into a system of reverence for the exclusive and the extreme, a system of reference for the exclusive and the extreme.