A short-lived, but querulous debate within the Church of Infinitiaty ended recently. You might be interested in hearing the details if, as a result of having absolutely no life whatsoever, you are suffering from a terminal case of boredom. If so, you’re probably looking for something—anything—to occupy your mind for a few minutes to stave off your lethal ennui, even if only briefly. The following might do the trick.
Here’s what happened.
Inga Dingbāht, an Infinitiaty Church franchisee and self-appointed reverend at the First Krāzi Most Holy Infinitian Church of God 9834, or FKMHICoG9834 for short, located in Krāzi, Latvia, started the debate. She postulated that there weren’t an infinite number of Gods, as Infinitiaty now preaches. She suggested that, instead, there was one God with an infinite number of aspects. Her theory was that when a God created another God—as must happen because nothing can exist without being created and only a God can create a God—the newly created “God” was not, in fact, materially a new God. Instead, she claimed it was a new aspect of what she called The Holy Infinity.
Inga argued that by stretching this string of single-God aspect creations back through infinite time, The God Infinity simultaneously always existed and never existed. In addition, the theoretical, but impossible in practice single Original Aspect of God would have been so inconsequential that it easily could have snuck into existence without being noticed. It, therefore, would not have needed to be created.
This theological theorem quickly wormed its way up the Church of Infinitiaty hierarchy. Eventually, it reached the Church’s executive suite, where it sparked a vociferous argument.
The Chief Executive Officer of the Church of Infinitiaty first heard the theorem in the midst of casual banter during a liquid lunch of sacramental gin and tonics, wines, and scotches consumed in the Church’s sumptuous executive dining room. The CEO immediately called an emergency meeting of the executive committee to discuss the veracity and implications of the theorem. The meeting started as soon as all of the members of the committee sobered up.
The CSO Weighs In
The Chief Sage Officer kicked off the discussion on the holy infinity. He argued that Inga’s theorem made perfect sense. By worshipping only one God, but with an infinite number of aspects, the Church could achieve significant ecclesiastic economies of scale. He boldly asserted this would allow him to cut the number of Sages employed by the Church by at least 25 percent.
This garnered the CSO a smile and a nod from the CEO.
The Chief Ideology Officer, on the other hand, was opposed. He railed that worshipping one God would be impious. “We have always believed in and worshipped an infinite number of Gods,” she roared. “Changing now would be incredibly inconvenient.”
The Chief Marketing Officer supported the CIO. She pointed out that hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent building the Infinitian brand. That brand had always been built on an infinite number of Gods. “To switch to a single God, even a single God with an infinite number of aspects, would confuse consumers in the religion market. That would weaken the brand,” she asserted.
The CEO was still undecided, but his mind was made up after the Chief Tithing Officer spoke.
The Holy Infinity Debate: The Bottom Line
The CTO calmly stated, “I ran the numbers while you clowns were sobering up. Worshipping a single God would make it difficult, if not impossible, to sell multiple church franchises in a single geographical area. We now market franchises in overlapping territories for single-God churches (there can be an infinite number of those), God-group churches (also potentially an infinite number), and all-Gods churches. Adopting the new philosophy would be disastrous. Nobody will buy separate franchises for churches that worship different aspects of a single God.
“Thus, converting to a single God will reduce our potential church franchise revenue by at least 85 percent. It will also lower our commissions and royalties on tithes and religious icon sales by 25 to 40 percent. In turn, this will result in at least a 40 percent reduction in performance bonuses for the Church’s C-suite officers.”
Upon hearing this, the CEO thanked the CTO for helping the executive committee to see the light. The CEO awarded the CTO a one-time $100,000 bonus for her insight.
The CEO declared that, henceforth, the “one-God, infinite-aspects” theology would be considered blasphemy of the highest order. Asserting it would result in the asserter being excommunicated after being fined an amount equal to all of his or her worldly assets. In addition, the full amount of his or her income for the next 75 years would be garnisheed. Hence, the holy infinity debate ended for all time.
Inga was stripped of her church franchise without any financial compensation. Her church was shut down until a new franchisee could be found to take it over.
Inga’s parishioners were given coupons that entitled them to 50 percent off the initiation fees and first-year dues at any other Church of Infinitiaty church within a hundred-mile radius. As a gesture of goodwill, parishioners were also sent a free, holy wooden toothpick that had been devoutly blessed by one of the telemarketers in one of the Church’s nearby European call centers.