Why me? Why can't I just stop thinking too hard. It makes me miserable, and I feel like I am an idiot, 'cause I don't think anyone else thinks about these things...
One of the key concepts of Rosh haShanah is the concept of Kingship. This has been drilled into me over and over again. Why was RH the sixth day of creation and not the first? It's obvious - you cannot have a king without subjects, and man was created on the sixth day, so this was the first opportunity for G-d to be crowned king.
Except it is completely non-obvious to me. This is similar to my problem with the analogy of the heavenly court. I understand that, for whatever reason, G-d wants us to explicitly acknowledge his dominion over us. Actually it makes no sense to me, because my idea of G-d is very similar to the Rambam's (as I understand it). Why does G-d need our acknowledgement? I don't think that it is even possible to talk about our relationship to G-d outside what were specific mitzvot from the Torah, where we were told explicitly how to worship G-d.
But kingship is such a huge problem for me. It is so human a concept. And so flawed. For one thing, do you really need subjects to be a king? I mean you could be a deposed king living in exile. Does this mean that as long as there are some potential subjects that can be subjugated, you can be called king?
Also, kingship to me connotes so many negative aspects that I can't imagine why we'd bring up this imagery. For one thing, it seems clear from the Tanach, that G-d really didn't want us to have a worldly king and was rather disappointed when the people clamored for one. If one of the concepts of the Yomim Noraim is not to bring up self-incriminating events from the past, then why would we stick that in G-d's face, so to speak?
Also, kingship implies multiplicity - there has never been a king that ruled the entire world. Kingship implies intermediates - a king is usually surrounded by nobility and such, who often vie for the throne. In my mind this invokes images of Mt Olympus, not the G-d of the Torah.
I am guessing that well meaning commenters will tell me that non of it is literal, it is all allegorical, and there is all sorts of symbolism that is behind this that I just need to learn about. Perhaps they are right. However, to me a metaphor that confuses more than helps is a bad metaphor.
And don't get me started on Remembrances...