Divine Attributes of God Options

[Steppenwolf]

I'd like to appologize for anyone who senses any temper in my writing. I've been told about that many times, but it's not intentional. I do have Asperger syndrome, and you can take my words as comming from a disturbed autistic mind!

If anyone else has any thoughts on autism, maybe we should start a new topic.

[Lindsay]

Who was it said:

Steppenwolf, What humanity needs is not composing a new religion,

I totally agree.

Me too!!! BTW, did anyone suggest that we need a new organized religion? Was it Guest? If so, which one? I assure everyone: I make no such suggestion.

BTW, when I get an answer to this question, I have a suggestion to make to the 60 or more Guests--more prolific, it seems, than the Smiths, Mohammeds, or the Singhs, whoever--now appearing in the "last click". How many of you check out this interesting and useful function?

[code buttons]

The chartoon thing is as ridiculous as the 'Satanic Verses' thing. Politics. If you can't understatnd politics, then I guess you honestly believe that the KKK and Hitler are devout christians.

You're right, I can't understand politics. Funny enough, Hitler was a Christian. And most extreme-right militants in this country (KKK included) happen to be fervent Christians too! It's normal for KKK members to quote the bible textually as pretext for their dogmatic stand. But my question has to do with muslim tolerance towards contrary or antagonistic opinion. Cartoons in the west is a mode of expression. And sometimes in the daly papers, they are meant to ridicule famous or popular characters or establishments. The "Satanic Verses", on the other hand, is just a novel, someone's mode of expression (freedom of expression is something of a myth in the muslim world from what I've seen). In both cases, the author and the cartoonist are (and have been for years in the case of Salman Rushdie ) running for their life. So, based on the scriptures, what should your action be (or what would it be), personally, towards the cartoonist and the paper that publish them-- if you had your say or do about it? Should they be punished in some way?

I'm sorry if I might have misunderstood you, but you're actually saying that if christians in this country are all for invading other coutries, killing their innocent civilians, and occupying it, then Jesus must have been a killer. That's the logic you're using.

You did misunderstand me. I don't use this kind of logic.

Listen my son, you may chose to think whatever you want to think, but if you're indeed rational, then remember that rationality needs information input, and without that, your rationality is as good as my pocket calculator.

???

[Steppenwolf]

Or your pocket calculator for that matter

So, based on the scriptures, what should your action be (or what would it be), personally, towards the cartoonist and the paper that publish them-- if you had your say or do about it? Should they be punished in some way?

Nothing Code Button, what religion would order the murder of artists and writers!!!!!!!!!

[Lindsay]

In the Quran it says that:
1. your personal intentions are all what matters when it comes to judging your action to be right or wrong.

Steppenwolf., allow me to comment here: [ By and large, Christian theology takes a similar approach. Agape, the word used in the Greek New Testament means, let your intentions be kind, fair and just, even to people you may not like, including those who think of you as an enemy. IMO, when Jesus told us to "love our enemies" and to "turn the other cheek" he did not mean for us to invite bullies to hit us. It was his metaphoric way of saying: Give other people the opportuniity to show their clear intentions. The first slap may have been done by mistake, or done in haste. ]

You go on

2. Spreading the faith is God's responsibility alone, muslims can only spread the WORD. Everyone has all religious freedom as long no harm is done towards other people. In history, this was strictly implemented up untill the mass Turkish invasion (around the 1400's) where it became relative. Relative meaning that it's a law, but the practice is up to the ruler's choosing.

I really have no excuse for what people in the middle east are like today, but they're only as bad as people here or anywhere else. Maybe if you stop watching Fox News a day or two the picture will become clearer.

Remember how the Russians where made to be the devil himself. I guess not, Americans are good at many things besides history.

Listen my son, you may chose to think whatever you want to think, but if you're indeed rational, then remember that rationality needs information input, and without that, your rationality is as good as my pocket calculator.

Steppenwolf (Are you the musician of the same name?), do Muslims have to pray five times a day to remain faithful Muslims? Are the prayers formal ones, written down? Are they the same prayers, at all times? What are some of the words used? How do you avoid anthropmorphism? Do you pray to Allah, as if "he" is a person, with a gender? How do you address the deity?

BTW, my only daughter-in-law is a Muslim, from Iran. My son met her at York University, Toronto. She is an avid student of Sufism. We communicate very well. My only three grandchildren are one-half Iranian--the girls and one boy. I love the idea of mixing the genes.

You can check out my interests in philosophy and religion by clicking on my name. Go to interests. I am a retired United Church of Canada minister. I try to take a universal approach to all good religions.

BY, the way, I am having problems with the "View New Posts" function, in this forum only. Am I the only one?

[code buttons]

I try to take a universal approach to all good religions.

I didn't know there was any good ones. What makes them good/bad? How can you tell them apart? By the size of their building, or the number of conquered souls?

[Lindsay]

....I didn't know there was any good ones (religions).

Very funny, CB. But take heart: If you truly do NOT know, rest assured that ignorance is curable. Unfortunately, stupidity is not. And cynical, dogmatic and negative atheism, not unlike dogmatic religionism, is riddled with the chaotic cancer of stupidity.

Unfortunately, too, there are, IMO, stupid questions: the rhetorical kind.

BTW, I assume you are not a cynical atheist, but a positive one with a positive message for humanity. I also assume that you are willing to dialogue. Assuming this, I would love to read your definition of atheism.

[code buttons]

....I didn't know there was any good ones (religions).

Very funny, CB.

I'm sorry if I misled you. But my question is as serious as a heart attack

But take heart: If you truly do NOT know, rest assured that ignorance is curable.

Not trying to be offensive here, Lindsay. But that's been my whole point with you. Your religioius comments plastered on most of your posts show that very thing you me blame for: ignorance, foolishness and gullabiliby.

BTW, I assume you are not a cynical atheist, but a positive one with a positive message for humanity. I also assume that you are willing to dialogue. Assuming this, I would love to read your definition of atheism.

What does atheism have to do with this conversation?

[Lindsay]

The following "questions", IMO, are rhetorical ones--the kind I try to avoid.

I didn't know there was any good ones. What makes them good/bad? How can you tell them apart? By the size of their building, or the number of conquered souls?

So are the following--ones I also try to avoid: How come some people are so cynical that they do not even recognize when they are being cynical?
How come some people have no idea how to carry on a civil dialogue which could lead to real information and progress? How come some people are more inclined to be aggressive than progressive?

Questions for information, asked with respect:
Are you an atheist?
How do you define atheism? Theism? Deism?
Religion? Theology? Science? Pneumatology?
In what "religion", if any, were you raised?
Are you cynical about all religions? If not, what value do
some of them have?
Keep in mind: I love dialoguing with people who agree differ, to disagree, agreeably.
=====================================================
BTW, did I ever call anyone "gullible, etc ..." or even implied that they were? Offer one quote of mine, in proper context, where I called anyone, foolish and gullible, or even ignorant, and I will gladly apologize. IMO, ignorance, is not a problem. I am ignorant of many things. As I said, "ignorance is curable".

I also readily admit that there are certain kinds of people with whom I find it very difficult to dialogue so I do come to the point where, for the benefit of all, I refuse to do so.

[code buttons]

If I sound cynical, Lindsay, it might be out of frustration. Because I realize that I am wasting my time with you like I’d be if I was talking to a brick wall. As for religion, I stated my opinion earlier in this thread. But, overall, this is how I feel about your questions: Religions are misleading and evil. They have no place in our rational society except for the ignorant and the gullible (but, if ignorance is curable as you claim, then there is hope for humanity; and that's a good thing). It’s like a social cancer that spreads from brain to brain. And the process repeats itself at an exponential rate. This process is counter-productive to social advancement and progress, but it goes on unchecked, nonetheless. As far as the end result of the social degradation by way of religion, one needs to look no further than the current state of world affairs: Muslims killing Christians killing Hindus killing Muslims and so on…
I’m a simple man and as such, keep it simple: If and when in doubt, I use reason and love to guide it (Rick’s original, by the way)

[Lindsay]

...I’m a simple man and as such, keep it simple: If and when in doubt, I use reason and love to guide it (Rick’s original, by the way)

If this is how you live your life then let's face it: this is your RELIGION, which literally means way of life. I too believe in reason, guided by love and consider them part of any healthy religion.

It is no accident that John's writings define GOD as love. Jesus said, "GOD is spirit" and that we ought to love one another. He, as did Paul, spoke of love as the highest good. Our word 'spirit' comes from the Latin 'spirito'. It literally means air, wind or breath, which to the ancients were looked on as the mysterious source of life itself. The Greek is 'pneuma'; the Hebrew is 'ruach' and the arabic is 'ruh'. I think of myself as one with GOD with every breath I take. IMO so is everyone. I like to write GØD so as to get away from the idea of thinking of divine being as an object, a male or female person. It helps me avoid what is called anthropomorphism--creating GØD in our human image.

Interestingly, Jesus never said, "GOD is a Christian" or "a Jew". In my opinion, he advocated Spirituanity, not Christianity. So do I. This does not require my belonging to a powerful, organized, and dogmatic group church. I accept it that, as Lord Acton (1834-1902) warned, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" http://www.libertystory.net/LSTHINKACTON.html
Interestingly, Acton was a Roman Catholic, and he had no formal education.

If you know anything about history: There was such a thing as the Reformation of Roman Catholicism.

Out of the Reformation came numerous smaller fellowships. I like what can happen in small fellowship groups. Like enlarged families they can be designed to help people take care of and serve one another, lovingly.

BTW, you write: "As far as the end result of the social degradation by way of religion, one needs to look no further than the current state of world affairs: Muslims killing Christians killing Hindus killing Muslims and so on…"

Surely you are not arguing that scientific and materialistic humanism is the root of all virtue and good, are you? I am sure that you must be aware that atheistic regimes such as those of Stalin, Mao and others did their share of killing, are you not? Sick atheisms and sick religions do exist.

Meanwhile, keep in mind that the root meaning of the word 'devil'--from the Greek diabolos--is, that which divides, or separates, us from our good. The same is true of the the Hebrew 'satan' and the Arabic 'shatan'. One of the reasons that I am a strong advocate that people ought to be free to disagree, agreeably is that I feel that unnecessary divisiveness is fraught with danger and borders on stupidity.

[code buttons]

I too believe in reason, guided by love and consider them part of any healthy religion.

Now, who is being the cynical here?

...GØD spoke to me and told me bla, bla,bla... Jesus said in the Bible bla, bla, bla... I like to dialogue with others about the son of GØD, bla, bla, bla...

Need I say more? Lindsays diagnosis: Delusional beyond help. What a doofus! You're not just embarrassing yourself, you know! Wollowed up in the arrogance of your ignorance. What else did "the son of god" say? might as well quote the whole thing here at BrainMeta,since you like to share your "good news" so much. Start a new thread under "Ancient Astrology" if you would, though; I wouldn't want the average Joe to be decieved. At least not here at BM.

[Lindsay]

...Need I say more?

More what? Spinning and diatribe? If this is your choice, go ahead. However, expect me to respond only to dialogue.

[Culture]

...Need I say more?

More what? Spinning and diatribe? If this is your choice, go ahead. However, expect me to respond only to dialogue.

Seems that this dialogue is going nowhere. I am not rying to step on anyones toes here, but perhaps this will help taking this discussion to another level.

This should be of interest not only to academics but to all who wish to dialogue in a rational manner. I generally give this to my first year university students on day one.

http://www.ukpoliticsmisc.org.uk/usenet_ev...e/argument.html

The Fallibility Principle
The Truth-Seeking Principle
The Clarity Principle
The Burden of Proof Principle
The Principle of Charity
The Relevance Principle
The Acceptability Principle
The Sufficiency Principle
The Rebuttal Principle
The Resolution Principle
The Suspension of Judgment Principle
The Reconsideration Principle

1. The Fallibility Principle

When alternative positions on any disputed issue are under review, each
participant in the discussion should acknowledge that possibly none of
the positions presented is deserving of acceptance and that, at best,
only one of them is true or the most defensible position. Therefore, it
is possible that thorough examination of the issue will reveal that
one’s own initial position is a false or indefensible one.

2. The Truth-Seeking Principle

Each participant should be committed to the task of earnestly searching
for the truth or at least the most defensible position on the issue at
stake. Therefore, one should be willing to examine alternative positions
seriously, look for insights in the positions of others, and allow other
participants to present arguments for or raise objections to any
position held with regard to any disputed issue.

3. The Clarity Principle

The formulations of all positions, defences, and attacks should be free
of any kind of linguistic confusion and clearly separated from other
positions and issues.

4. The Burden of Proof Principle

The burden of proof for any position usually rests on the participant
who sets forth the position. If and when an opponent asks, the proponent
should provide an argument for that position.

5. The Principle of Charity

If a participant’s argument is reformulated by an opponent, it should be
expressed in the strongest possible version that is consistent with the
original intention of the arguer. If there is any question about that
intention or about implicit parts of the argument, the arguer should be
given the benefit of any doubt in the reformulation.

‘For a practical application of the principles governing good
argumentation summarized in this chapter and addressed throughout the
book, see the detailed critique of several popular points of view,
including those of Shirley MacLaine and Ronald Reagan, in Lawrence L.
Habermehl’s The Counterfeit Wisdom of Shallow Minds: A Critique of Some
Leading Offenders of the 1980’s (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc.,
1995).

6. The Relevance Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to
set forth only reasons that are directly related to the merit of the
position at issue.

7. The Acceptability Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to
use reasons that are mutually acceptable to the participants and that
meet standard criteria of acceptability.

8. The Sufficiency Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to
provide reasons that are sufficient in number, kind, and weight to
support the acceptance of the conclusion.

9. The Rebuttal Principle

One who presents an argument for or against a position should attempt to
provide an effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument
or the position it supports and to the strongest argument on the other
side of the issue.

10. The Resolution Principle

An issue should be considered resolved if the proponent for one of the
alternative positions successfully defends that position by presenting
an argument that uses relevant and acceptable premises that together
provide sufficient grounds to support the conclusion and provides an
effective rebuttal to all serious challenges to the argument or position
at issue. Unless one can demonstrate that these conditions have not been
met, one should accept the conclusion of the successful argument and
consider the issue, for all practical purposes, to be settled. In the
absence of a successful argument for any of the alternative positions,
one is obligated to accept the position that is supported by the best of
the good arguments presented.

11. The Suspension of Judgment Principle

If no position comes close to being successfully defended, or if two or
more positions seem to be defended with equal strength, one should, in
most cases, suspend judgment about the issue. If practical
considerations seem to require an immediate decision, one should weigh
the relative risks of gain or loss connected with the consequences of
suspending judgment and decide the issue on those grounds.

12. The Reconsideration Principle

If a successful or at least good argument for a position is subsequently
found by any participant to be flawed in a way that raises new doubts
about the merit of that position, one is obligated to reopen the issue
for further consideration and resolution.

From Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer

[code buttons]

I try to take a universal approach to all good religions.

WHAT WE ARE

[OnlyNow]

I try to take a universal approach to all good religions.

WHAT WE ARE

Okay, you need to start underlining your links so I'll know it's a link. I was racking (and wracking) my brain trying to figure out what your "WHAT WE ARE" retort meant. (I'm slow.) Anyway, it's pretty funny. Where do you find these things?

[Rick]

That slide show pretty well sums it up, doesn't it? Where do we go from here?

[Lindsay]

Seems that this dialogue is going nowhere.

Thanks for noting this, Culture, and for the valuable thoughts from the book, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, by T. Edward Damer. I would add: In all dialogue, we always need to remember to keep a sense of humour.

[Culture]

[
I think of GØD as the NOthing--not to be confused with nothing--from which ALLthings come. Therefore, GØD is positive and negative--like the hydrogen atom--male and female, whatever. At the other end of the scale, GØD is the NOthing, the vacuum, the absolute, that into which our physical universe, and all things, are expanding, ad infinitum. This allows me to conceptualize that GØD is not just in the creative processes of life--the goodness, order and design of all that IS; but G is also in the chaotic processes going on, all around us, and in that which is apparently, or so-called, evil. Evil can then be seen as good in the making.

The challenge for me is to find ways and means of being involved, as one in tune with GØD, in the creative processes, rather than the destructive ones.

Your comments, critical and otherwise, are welcome. I am sure I am not the only one who is thinking, theologically, this way. I welcome your thoughts.

That's not a rewrite. Defining God as a non-anthropomorphic infinity
concept is a fairly common notion among "alternative" religions.

Didn't Zen Buddhism follow similar lines.. or just Nihilists?

[Lindsay]

'Culture' date='Aug 24, 01:45 AM. Didn't Zen Buddhism follow similar lines.. or just Nihilists?

Of course! And interestingly, even traditional theism, the kind in which I was raised, went out of its way to avoid anthropomorphism.

Even as a youth--I was a student for the ministry at 17--this is what made me wonder this ambivalence: Why do we keep praying to God as a "Him"? Why do we address God as if He were a super-kind of person, one with a will, able to hear (with ears?) and answer (with a voice?) our prayers?

BTW, I have a great deal of respect for ZB. I am convinced that Jesus studied it during those so-called "lost years". We have no record of what he did between 12 and 30.

Did you hear about the eastern mystic who didn't need freezing to have a tooth fixed? He told his dentist: I have learned to transcend dental medication.

[Joesus]

I think of GØD as the NOthing--not to be confused with nothing--from which ALLthings come. Therefore, GØD is positive and negative--like the hydrogen atom--male and female, whatever. At the other end of the scale, GØD is the NOthing, the vacuum, the absolute, that into which our physical universe, and all things, are expanding, ad infinitum. This allows me to conceptualize that GØD is not just in the creative processes of life--the goodness, order and design of all that IS; but G is also in the chaotic processes going on, all around us, and in that which is apparently, or so-called, evil. Evil can then be seen as good in the making.

One has to change their thoughts to entertain the thought of something new. There are thoughts that take the mind inward to source and then there are thoughts that take the mind outward trailing belief. Often one changes one belief for another and in their exuberance are convinced they can change the world with their discoveries of their new idea or thought.

A new religion, a new concept of God or a new way to spell God often entertains the mind because it has something new to think about but the new thought is not necessarily at deeper levels of expanded thought, just an expansion of belief or an enlarging of the box.
God being a NO thing or nothing or a thing is still a description of an idea or a concept.
The closer one gets to letting go of concepts the closer one gets to being unattached to the idea that they can change anyone of give anyone anything.
Motivated by the Ego, you can be convinced there are those who need to see God in a different light and you may preach your own belief, spell God differently or explain your experience of God so that others can follow, or substantiate, your own experience.
Once one has an experience of life being projected outward from the stillness that is the Self then the ego witnesses life and surrenders thought feeling and action to the stillness as it moves outward into manifestation. The witnesser becomes surrendered to the stillness which is often called the Self.

More what? Spinning and diatribe? If this is your choice, go ahead. However, expect me to respond only to dialogue.

Expectations are identifications and anchors in the manifest, put in particular boxes which are building and maintaining the Box of Belief. As you identify another so will you react accordingly and identify yourself. This is projection and attachment to projection.

Even as a youth--I was a student for the ministry at 17--this is what made me wonder this ambivalence: Why do we keep praying to God as a "Him"? Why do we address God as if He were a super-kind of person, one with a will, able to hear (with ears?) and answer (with a voice?) our prayers?

The unmanifest unseen one is by tradition of thought and teaching considered male, while the manifest changing aspects of creation represents the female making the One hemaphrodite or the One God including the unseen and the seen. Uniting them as one. The vertical staff of the cross represents the stable aspect of the unmanifest, the male part of the one, while the female moves outward from the unmanifest horizontally, the horizontal part of the cross.

So what has changed in the identification of yourself as being a minister for God. At 17 you wondered, and now do you still wonder or have you stilled your mind into your present containment of thoughts accumulated over the years through expanding experience?
Are you still wondering or has your mind become complacent in a new belief?
Has your mind anchored itself in belief or is it stilled inbetween belief?
If you believe in anyone and respond to them according to your belief in them then you must obviously know that they are predisposed to their belief in God no matter how you spell it.
You can explain your belief but the word is already established in their mind as associated with their own internal programs.
Im sure you've seen the bit where you can spell words incorrectly, rearranging letters in the words in a sentence but the mind often overlooks the spelling and absorbs the words according to their internal programs of word association.
Such is the futility of projecting change in anyone who hasn't made an internal shift leaving internal programs behind to expand the awareness to something greater.

Through your own experience I'm sure you have seen by asking why, you yourself have opened yourself to more understanding, but have you simply rearranged your attachment to the belief in ignorance by separating yourself from it to look upon others as being ignorant or have you just become expanded in your ignorance? By responding only to dialogue have you limited yourself to speaking when you identify with the manifest and your role or have you surrendered your role and give of yourself according to spirit and the compassion of bringing light into darkness, not through thought but through surrender?

What you are convinced of in Jesus' study in his early years, was it the understanding of mind association and the ability to understand the attachment and judgment of identity created by ego or was it the learning of his own Union?
I'm not so sure he learned how to be God as how everyone got stuck in being something other, or how to see through the eyes of ignorance so to gain the experience of compassion in terms of humanity so that they might understand him rather than he to necessarily need to understand them to gain something in his own divinity.
I think That particular entity had surpassed that level of reality long before this planet and human presence was ever introduced into this part of the universe.

I think humanity is still very much stuck in their own new found beliefs of non belief and experiences of God in being NOthing and everything.

I think you should give everything that you think you know to God in whatever spelling you desire and start completely new, from a place of not knowing anything.
I think that is the only way you may begin to understand what you've done to yourself over the years and how you limit God to your own experience, and continue to limit God by insisting on identifying with the way you spell God by putting a slash through the O in the word God.

[Culture]

I think you should give everything that you think you know to God in whatever spelling you desire and start completely new, from a place of not knowing anything.
I think that is the only way you may begin to understand what you've done to yourself over the years and how you limit God to your own experience, and continue to limit God by insisting on identifying with the way you spell God by putting a slash through the O in the word God.

Although I agree that a viable approach is one of starting from a place of noknowing anything, this would be considerably difficult to achieve. The means of identification with any <deity> is usually one of indoctrination.

[Lindsay]

I think you should give everything that you think you know to God in whatever spelling you desire and start completely new, from a place of not knowing anything..."

Although I agree that a viable approach is one of starting from a place of noknowing anything, this would be considerably difficult to achieve. The means of identification with any <deity> is usually one of indoctrination.

Culture, both you and Joesus offer the kind of dialogue which I appreciate, even when I find myself not understanding what is meant, or at odds with what I understand.


Keep in mind that what I offer is never meant to be a fixed dogma from me--one received as if by divine revelation. It is merely my opinion at this point. I hope I shall always be open enough not to allow myself to be trapped in my own ego. I am always open to being corrected.

BTW, Joesus, and Culture, in a few sentences, please summarize your theology for us? My basic theology is: GOD is love.

[Culture]

[quote name='Lindsay' date='Aug 24, 12:30 PM' post='68843']
[/quote] Culture, both you and Joesus offer the kind of dialogue which I appreciate, even when I find myself not understanding what is meant, or at odds with what I understand.


Keep in mind that what I offer is never meant to be a fixed dogma from me--one received as if by divine revelation. It is merely my opinion at this point. I hope I shall always be open enough not to allow myself to be trapped in my own ego. I am always open to being corrected.

BTW, Joesus, and Culture, in a few sentences, please summarize your theology for us? My basic theology is: GOD is love.
[/quote]

An interesting question. I am more of a logos individual and have not felt any reason to prefix this with 'theos'
However if really pressed it would be negative theology, this only because of spending two years as a monk.

[code buttons]

I was racking (and wracking) my brain trying to figure out what your "WHAT WE ARE" retort meant.

Ha! Ha! That's what you get for over-estimating a simple man such as myself!

[Lindsay]

'Culture' date='Aug 24...An interesting question. I am more of a logos individual and have not felt any reason to prefix this with 'theos'
However if really pressed it would be negative theology, this only because of spending two years as a monk.

You and John 1:1-18? where John writes "In the beginning was the word (logos)..." Now give us a little more of what you mean by "logos individual". How close is this to Buddhism, which I understand is non-theistic. That is, in the sense that Buddhism does not rquire belief in a personal god.

I will discuss your comments in a new thread on INVENTING GOD--not to be confused with creating GOD.

[Joesus]

Although I agree that a viable approach is one of starting from a place of noknowing anything, this would be considerably difficult to achieve. The means of identification with any <deity> is usually one of indoctrination.

I don't recommend starting from a place you can't grasp but moving towards it from a place you are at.
Beliefs aren't inherent, nor is the identification of <deity>. The innocent are often confused by those who manage to lead thought from intuition and communion on a level that is beyond identity to conform with the majority in their projections and belief.
One must return their senses to the subtle rather than continue to move outward away from them.

BTW, Joesus, and Culture, in a few sentences, please summarize your theology for us? My basic theology is: GOD is love.

Love is the ultimate support system of the manifest in whatever form it is interpreted.
You mentioned that evil is the good in evolution, but evil exists only in the presence of Good because of the dual nature of indentification with opposites.
Theology isn't necessary. Its often a system of measure to weigh ones thoughts in the recognition or identification of good and evil or righteousness and non righteousness.

[Lindsay]

...Love is the ultimate support system of the manifest in whatever form it is interpreted.

I heartily agree. Joesus, what is your concept of love? How do you describe it? Are you familiar with the following words: eros, philia and agape? And how they differ from one another?

[Lindsay]

...I’m a simple man and as such, keep it simple: If and when in doubt, I use reason and love to guide it...

For the record, I am always super cautious when someone warns me: "I'm a simple man..." However, I too agree that "reaon and love" when used, sincerely, can be good guides.

[Joesus]

Joesus, what is your concept of love?

In reference to God, Love is without conditions. It supports all conditions and prepares the way for desire and fulfillment of desire, as well as duality in the perception of failure and non achievement, separation and suffering.

Are you familiar with the following words: eros, philia and agape? And how they differ from one another?

Only in reference to how the dictionary defines them. They are not words that I use or have used.

Do you seek to find yourself in words that define you or the experience of you?