Within the Jewish-Christian-Muslim religions, God may be seen as a transcendent being running the show we refer to as the universe.
A Hindu may likewise debate a Jew regarding whose God is real, Brahmin (the Self), or Yahweh (I AM). Potentially this divide could lead to warfare. Yet, they mean the same thing. I AM is who I am, my Self! Whenever we go to war, we war against ourselves. Thus Christ rightly said, "love thy enemy as thyself." Another line that fits this mirroring quality to the world is "judge not lest ye be judged."
Whew, what a whopper that last one is given the self-righteous arrogance of some Christians.
What if I AM is Creativity more so than Creator? Would that make a difference? Many mystics of various traditions have said just that: "God is a verb." Is it odd for a religious man to say God is a verb?
No, David Cooper, a Jew, wrote a book titled, God is a Verb. In more ancient times, Chinese mystic Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching defined Tao as the Way, which entails the intercourse of "yin" (female) and "yang" (male).
It is by understanding the Verb way of looking at what drives the cosmos and contrasting it with the Noun that we might just get past our divides of this against that.
Could we entice the unfolding of a better world this way, a unity that embraces diversity? I'm not sure. All I'm saying is let's take a look at it.
Think about the ramifications of the Tao's notion of the intercourse of yin and yang: women and men express cosmic process? Sit with that for a minute. And, we are alienated why?
All creatures shout God, says 14th century mystic Meister Eckhart. The only way to get to this, in my opinion, is again in a line by Meister Eckhart , "we must be as we were when we were not."
In other words, we need to decondition ourselves. This is the deep, non-literal story of Christ's being virgin born. The virgin mind is one that is deconditioned.
Have we become "un-grounded" by "worshipping" and conditioned to believe in some Platonic ideal existing as a man far above the clouds that refuses to get His hands dirty?
How does that relate to our top-down governance, which is bought and sold by corporations and banks? What are the consequences of our living like this?
Is God's rule bottom up (akin to Rob Kall's passion) or trickle down (Reagan's metaphor) a reflection of how we should be living? The God we choose has ramifications for how we live.
Neither, the debate is about how we see ourselves in the world. How we define God is how we define ourselves. Rob's "Bottom Up" way is about self-empowerment. Which one does God choose? Whichever one you choose. The debate should be what are the ramifications of one over the other.
My thumb's up is with Rob, which does not mean he gives his thumbs up to this article. God exists as everything and has to exist in everything since Infinity does not exist independent of anything. Yet, Infinity is limited in its being unlimited. If there were no one except you, how would you see yourself reflected without the mirror of the cosmos?
Remember the commandment, "love thy neighbor as thy self?" Is it time to actually practice what we preach? Can you see your ego in the eyes of the Koch Brothers?