[fluff]

Jesus was an Eastern teacher...............

What shall we call it?

 

[Andyman_1970]

What shall we call it?

The Way..........LOL

 

[MikeD]

Can I use The Way to pull my lightsaber out of the ice and slay the abominable space snowman?

No, seriously, thanks for a good thread. I really appreciate Andy's ability to look at Christianity within its historical context and not as a reflection of a culture which tends to practice it as window-dressing or an endorsement of themselves rather than God...

MD

 

[Andyman_1970]

Can I use The Way to pull my lightsaber out of the ice and slay the abominable space snowman?

Only if I can use it to influence the "weak minded" to discouage them from looking for my droids............"these aren't the droids you're looking for......"

No, seriously, thanks for a good thread. I really appreciate Andy's ability to look at Christianity within its historical context and not as a reflection of a culture which tends to practice it as window-dressing or an endorsement of themselves rather than God...

MD

Thanks dude. The interesting thing is Jesus spoke against this very way of living out one's faith.

 

[MikeD]

Thanks dude. The interesting thing is Jesus spoke against this very way of living out one's faith.

But to the "Christian" living in this way, it's always the "other guy" who's doing it wrong...people can't get past themselves to see God. Their way IS Christianity, and it's incomprehensible to them that they're not on the right path. Pretty easy to say it's the other guy who's got it screwed up, and pass judgement, eh?

And when I say "see God," as an agnostic-because-I-think-religion-is-irrelevant-to-God-and-I'll-never-comprend-God-but-will-try-to-reach -the-state-of-mind-you're-talking-about kind of guy, I mean 'understand the world on a visceral, non-linguistic, unitary level,' which is what I think Buddhists are going for as well.

MD

 

[fluff]

But to the "Christian" living in this way, it's always the "other guy" who's doing it wrong...people can't get past themselves to see God. Their way IS Christianity, and it's incomprehensible to them that they're not on the right path. Pretty easy to say it's the other guy who's got it screwed up, and pass judgement, eh?

And when I say "see God," as an agnostic-because-I-think-religion-is-irrelevant-to-God-and-I'll-never-comprend-God-but-will-try-to-reach -the-state-of-mind-you're-talking-about kind of guy, I mean 'understand the world on a visceral, non-linguistic, unitary level,' which is what I think Buddhists are going for as well.

MD

That's why Buddhism is arguably closer to philosophy than religion (as the words are usually meant). It's about how you live rather than what you believe - actions speak louder than words.

 

[MikeD]

That's why Buddhism is arguably closer to philosophy than religion (as the words are usually meant). It's about how you live rather than what you believe - actions speak louder than words.

Which is why I sometimes laugh and say "well, I'm not religious, but I'm philosphically pretty close to a Buddhist..."

It's also interesting that lots of Buddhists see Christ as just another of the many buddhas that taught one of the many ways to the one ultimate state of mind.

MD

Edit: Hey, Andy, any thoughts on how 'love' as often mentioned by Jesus might actually differ from how modern western Christians think of 'love?' I can see potential for disparities arising from both cultural roots and language/translation... but you're the expert.

 

[Andyman_1970]

But to the "Christian" living in this way, it's always the "other guy" who's doing it wrong...people can't get past themselves to see God. Their way IS Christianity, and it's incomprehensible to them that they're not on the right path. Pretty easy to say it's the other guy who's got it screwed up, and pass judgement, eh?

I agree, I try to look at things as how can I influence this community rather than have the attitude "your a bunch of pharisee's" - anyone can deconstruct - I think one rabbi put it "Any donkey can knock down a barn, but it takes a special one to build a barn."

One comment about Christianity - God and Jesus are bigger than Christianity, esspecially modern (western) Christianity. I think the problem becomes when people get the mindset that there is no truth outside Christianity, and that only things labeled Christian are true. The problem is that the word Christian in the Bible is a noun not an adjective. Things can be true and not be Christian, things can be labeled Christian and not be true.

This is not to say (at least from the Christian perspective) there is not Truth out there, but instead we need to understand that the whole ordered universe is filled with God's significance and truth can be found anywhere, there is no where you can go where this is no truth...........anyway........sorry for the ramblings.......

 

[Andyman_1970]

That's why Buddhism is arguably closer to philosophy than religion (as the words are usually meant). It's about how you live rather than what you believe - actions speak louder than words.

The interesting thing is, many times in the Gospels when Jesus declares "salvation has come to this house" or an issue regarding eternal life, it's in the context of this person has lived a certain way. The word repent in the Hebrew (t'shuvah) means to "turn back" to the way God orginially intended us to live. The early church in the book of Acts is known as "The Way" because of the way they lived. In the book of 1 Peter, he makes a statement about living in a way where people would ask you about the hope you have.

The disconnect from what I have studied, happened around the time of the reformation. With all the different denominations that sprag from the reformation, the Christian fundamental identity then became what beliefs do you agree with, what things do you have correctly lined up in your brain. The Bible however identifies followers of Jesus as not merely persons who believe, but persons who live it out (faith without works is dead).

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

andyman, i read all your post very interested. and i have a question for you.
all your spitiritual things seem to be pretty consistent and mutually dependant. yet there is one thing.

why do you believe in jesus?? why not believe only in all your judaism-based beliefs? what makes jesus`s word, other than he saying he is he savior, worth more than say buddha, or mahoma????

 

[Andyman_1970]

Edit: Hey, Andy, any thoughts on how 'love' as often mentioned by Jesus might actually differ from how modern western Christians think of 'love?' I can see potential for disparities arising from both cultural roots and language/translation... but you're the expert.

I think (at least from what I have seen) by and large this is an aspect of Jesus that is overlooked, and yet was foundational to His message. One reason I think it's overlooked is that Jesus' ministry was primarily made up of the social screw ups of the day, and there are churches who are hesitant to embrace this message as the demographic of their congregation could change from those who "have it figured out" to a bunch of social misfits.

Jesus said the two most important commandments were to love God (Deut. 6 - the Shema) and to love others (Levitius 19). John in his first epistle takes this one step further, he says that if you say you love God but don't love others your a liar. So essentially loving those around you IS how you love God. The word love here in this post is the Greek word agape, which is unconditional love.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Andyman_1970]

BTW MikeD, that was an awesome question.

 

[Andyman_1970]

andyman, i read all your post very interested. and i have a question for you.
all your spitiritual things seem to be pretty consistent and mutually dependant. yet there is one thing.

why do you believe in jesus?? why not believe only in all your judaism-based beliefs? what makes jesus`s word, other than he saying he is he savior, worth more than say buddha, or mahoma????

Excellent question Alexis, and I appreciate the manner in which your question was presented.

Why do I believe in Jesus, man that’s a huge question. First, the “Clif Notes” version would be I took a leap (ie faith).

The medium length version would be that I have been on a spiritual journey, as I believe all of us are. I started out a “regular” Southern Baptist, and then after more than a few discussions in which I had my booty handed to me, I decided it was time to examine this faith I have, essentially why do I believe what I believe. I then stumbled on the historic and Judaic aspects of Jesus. The Text went from just face value to suddenly having multiple “layers” and meanings.

For me the historic and cultural context adds so much substance to the Text. I discovered what it meant for a 1st century Jewish rabbi to have disciples, and what being a disciple meant, I discovered that things like baptism and the Lord’s Supper didn’t just float down out of heaven, they were Jewish rites “co opted” into Christianity. At one point I seriously considered becoming a Messianic Gentile and “converting” to Judaism.

I can’t comment on Buddhism as I’m a bit fuzzy on that, but as for Islam and Muhammad, from what I have studied there is just too much “blank” time between him and any associated writings and very little historical evidence from Muhammad’s time (6th century I believe) to confirm his existence.

Anyway, did that answer your question?

 

[Silver]

Fundamentally what are the differences?

Philosophically dualism refers to the a few things, but a good place to start would be Descartes mind/body distinction. The opposing view to that is reductive materialism.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

For me the historic and cultural context adds so much substance to the Text. I discovered what it meant for a 1st century Jewish rabbi to have disciples, and what being a disciple meant, I discovered that things like baptism and the Lord’s Supper didn’t just float down out of heaven, they were Jewish rites “co opted” into Christianity. At one point I seriously considered becoming a Messianic Gentile and “converting” to Judaism.

Anyway, did that answer your question?

yup. i also agree that judaism is the most sound theological thought from those i know a few things.

but i got a doubt, what exactly in your spiritual trip made you jump the barrier from considering converting to judaism, into christianity and jesus?

i was also a tough non-believer, but after talking with a rabbi about judaism, it seems to me judaism is quite hard to refute even in the grounds of logic.
but from the jewish philosophy to jesus its quite a leap imo.

 

[Andyman_1970]

but i got a doubt, what exactly in your spiritual trip made you jump the barrier from considering converting to judaism, into christianity and jesus?.

Actually, I considered "converting" to Messianic Judaism after I became a Christian.

i was also a tough non-believer, but after talking with a rabbi about judaism, it seems to me judaism is quite hard to refute even in the grounds of logic. but from the jewish philosophy to jesus its quite a leap imo.

I totally agree with you on that one. As for your comments about Jesus and Jewish philosophy, I don't have time to comment (I'm at work), but I'll post more later when I get home.

 

[Andyman_1970]

i was also a tough non-believer, but after talking with a rabbi about judaism, it seems to me judaism is quite hard to refute even in the grounds of logic.
but from the jewish philosophy to jesus its quite a leap imo.

I'm not going to touch the divinity of Jesus issue in this post as that tends to be a road block for folks. One thing to keep in mind, Jesus was a Torah boservant Jew, if He had not been He would have been a false Messiah.

Also, another thing to keep in mind, is that early Christianity (which was called "The Way") was merely a sect of Judaism - I do not believe Jesus came to start a new religion. The "split" occured as a result of the wars that occured in Palestine in the middle, end 1st century and first part of the second century. It became hard for the Jewish Chrisitans and the Gentile Christians to come together after so much of the Jewish homeland was destroyed by Rome (Gentiles) - this culminated with Constantine making Christanity the "national" religion of Rome and in the process he erased any Jewish roots that may have remained.

Anyway.............

 

[Andyman_1970]

Bump.............must not let thead die.

There was mention of making this (or starting a new one from scratch) a "sticky".

How do we do that? Vote?

Anyway............

 

[MikeD]

Well, then, back to "love..."

I guess I was asking, "Is there any potential difference between the Greek/Western concept of Agape and the love that Jesus, as an eastern thinker, would have professed?"

Sorry, it's the buddhist that's been budding in me for so long talking. I'm thinking of love as almost a cooler, more intellectual, yet more all-encompassing love than we normally think of "Love, the Emotion" here in the West. However, I guess that's agape defined, eh?

The split, I think, comes from most people not understanding what agape is and thinking of it as familial or purely emotional love.

Anyhow, there's another bump fo' yo' threa-dizzle.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Thanks Mike for the question.

BTW, the irony of your custom title and the question you pose on this thread is cracking me up.

Well, then, back to "love..."

I guess I was asking, "Is there any potential difference between the Greek/Western concept of Agape and the love that Jesus, as an eastern thinker, would have professed?"

Actually the Hebrew and Greek concepts of love have some parallels and some differences.

Hebrew:
Ahavah = commited love
Ryah = friendly companion love
Dode = erotic love

Greek:
Philos = friendly companion love
Agape = unconditional, benevolent love
Eros = erotic love

I certainly think a lot of what Jesus taught has it’s foundation in unconditional love. According to Jesus the two most important commands are to love God and to love others (Mark 12). Then when you read 1 John 4, John says that if someone says they love God but don’t love (agape) others they are a liar. Which essentially boils down to loving others IS how you love God. (note: there is no mention here of having the “correct” things lined up in your brain – the emphasis here is how do you live).

Jesus talks about loving your enemies, and even alludes to a roman solider asking you to walk a mile. This would have been “crazy talk” for a 1st century Jewish rabbi to say, “Hey these Godless pagans that have invaded the promise land of God’s children, if one of these soldiers asks you to walk a mile, walk 2, if he asks for your jacket give him your shirt also.” So you can see how Jesus’ message was (and I argue still is) revolutionary.

Sorry, it's the buddhist that's been budding in me for so long talking. I'm thinking of love as almost a cooler, more intellectual, yet more all-encompassing love than we normally think of "Love, the Emotion" here in the West. However, I guess that's agape defined, eh?

The split, I think, comes from most people not understanding what agape is and thinking of it as familial or purely emotional love.

I agree with your concept of love that it is much more than a “warm fuzzy” feeling. I think far too often in today’s culture we base way too much on “feeling” and not on commitment and selflessness.

 

[MikeD]

BTW, the irony of your custom title and the question you pose on this thread is cracking me up.

Hey, now, buddy:

#1) I'm a satInist, not some greaseball goth.

#2) Don't go oppressing me.

Actually, though, it's confusing for the uninitiated. Orthodox Satinism does not involve satin, the fabric, in any shape or form. Rather, its tenets are built upon mocking the grammatical and typographical errors of others to an extent that most others find absurd.

MD

ed: thanks for your thoughts.

 

[$tinkle]

MikeD, Andy: perhaps you've seen this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

i'm looking into it now...

 

[Andyman_1970]

MikeD, Andy: perhaps you've seen this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

i'm looking into it now...

I skimmed it breifly, some of this stuff I've seen before.

One thing I would mention is context, context, context.

 

[MikeD]

Meh, typical stuff. I'm really sort an atheist, or at least an agnostic, and I find that tiring to read. It's smug, angry-teenager-with-a-Nine-Inch-Nails-tshirt-stuff. No crap; there are contradictions in the bible. It's a human document, regardless of what some Christians say and atheists like to parrot. It's not like it has "God" listed as an author. Even the transcriptions of "God's Word" are human documents. Our minds are finite, God's is/would be infinite...even a glimpse of God, if some way attainable, wouldn't give you any understanding of the totality of a diety. To claim God has thoughts or uses words is to belittle the very concept of God and turn him into a reflection of a human, as these are human concepts. People who think this way, on both sides, are, IMHO, missing the point of religion.

Even if, and I find this a stretch, God used a mediary or communicated in a form comprehensible to finite beings, the transcription of His words is still a human document, subject to the errors and vagaries of time, edition, interpretation by power, and-most treacherous of all-translation.

I suppose this is why Jesus would be such an important figure...as a messiah, he'd bridge that personal gap between God and humans.

I guess my feelings on the subject are, I don't think I'll ever know God or affirm/deny his existence directly during my life (no ****). The most I can do is to explore, through experiencing the nexus of the world around me and the world in my head and perhaps one day breaking through these artificial dichotomies of body/mind, internal/external, to maybe expand my understanding of things. I don't worry too much about morality; I do what I think is best based on utility, with universalization of an act as my guiding principle. (ie, If everyone did [whatever I'm considering doing], would I be happy?)

And I guess I'm going to hell in a handbasket.

MD

 

[Silver]

And I guess I'm going to hell in a handbasket.

MD

Actually, I think you have a reverse version of Pascal's wager going on. And if there is a God, you have a much better chance at heaven than most religionists do.

And if Calvin was right, no one has to worry about anything anyways

 

[MikeD]

Actually, I think you have a reverse version of Pascal's wager going on.

That's an intriguing way to look at it...sort of sums up "plan for the worst, hope for the best" in theological terms...

 

[Silver]

That's an intriguing way to look at it...sort of sums up "plan for the worst, hope for the best" in theological terms...

It's better than Pascal's wager. A god of infinite wisdom is going to know if you've been faking it.

 

[MikeD]

It's better than Pascal's wager. A god of infinite wisdom is going to know if you've been faking it.

You know, we ought to go for a ride sometime...you're in OC, right?

 

[Silver]

You know, we ought to go for a ride sometime...you're in OC, right?

I haven't been on my Bullit since October. I'm turning into a roadie.

How are the trails looking after the rain?

edit: Yep, Anaheim. And yes, we should.

 

[MikeD]

Trails look OK...in places. I've been doing more XC and road lately. Did Santiago Truck Trail 2 weeks ago (1st ride there ever) and it was pretty damned nice.

Why not come down to San Diego and reach nirvana in Noble Canyon sometime...?

MD

 

[Silver]

I'll take you up on that sometime in the next couple of months!

 

[Andyman_1970]

It's smug, angry-teenager-with-a-Nine-Inch-Nails-tshirt-stuff.

Yeah I agree, it ranks up there with the question "can God make a rock so big He can't pick it up?"

Our minds are finite, God's is/would be infinite...even a glimpse of God, if some way attainable, wouldn't give you any understanding of the totality of a diety.

According to the Bible God loves the world, even those who don't love Him. He routinely forgives those who really don't deserve it - at least from our point of view. Now, when we love people that on the outside seems illogical to those around us, I would argue that you are demonstrating and giving a glimpse of what God is like (even if someone doesn't love God, they are still giving people around them a glimpse of God).

To claim God has thoughts or uses words is to belittle the very concept of God and turn him into a reflection of a human, as these are human concepts. People who think this way, on both sides, are, IMHO, missing the point of religion.

If God is the infinite Creator of the universe, and He can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to use words that we can understand?

I suppose this is why Jesus would be such an important figure...as a messiah, he'd bridge that personal gap between God and humans.

You're getting warmer.

I guess my feelings on the subject are, I don't think I'll ever know God or affirm/deny his existence directly during my life (no ****).

I would argue whenever you're out in God's creation and are in awe of it - you're carving that sweet single track, that 8tf glassy overhead wave when your surfing, or that sunset when you're at the summit of one of the Cascade mountains, you are experiencing God.

Psalm 24:1 "The whole world is full of God" one rabbi says from prayer to garbage, everything is a manifestation of God. As such everything is connected and conceals the Holy one of All Being.

The tradition Jesus came from spirituality is an approach to life in which we strive to become aware of God's presence and purpose - even and esspecially in what might strike the casual observer as gross or material things. In the Hebrew Bible, there is no word for "spiritual", because to label one thing as spiritual means that something else is not. The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures understood that everything had spiritual significance.

I don't worry too much about morality; I do what I think is best based on utility, with universalization of an act as my guiding principle. (ie, If everyone did [whatever I'm considering doing], would I be happy?)

Actually Mike, the "point" of Christianity is not "Hey we're getting out of here" - although this is how it is regularly taught. The point of Christianity is how do you live now.

 

[Andyman_1970]

And if Calvin was right, no one has to worry about anything anyways

Nah, Calvin was an idot.

 

[MikeD]

If God is the infinite Creator of the universe, and He can do anything, why wouldn't He be able to use words that we can understand?

My point is that in saying "God spoke" or "God said this," or even "God did something" we're positing God as basically a person, albeit one who can "do anything." We're assuming God has a presence as an individual and sentient being, which I think is a pretty big supposition.

I can't speak to brine shrimp, either. Well, I can speak to them, but they don't understand...they may, however, feel my voice vibrating through the water in which they live their lives.

MD

 

[Andyman_1970]

My point is that in saying "God spoke" or "God said this," or even "God did something" we're positing God as basically a person, albeit one who can "do anything." We're assuming God has a presence as an individual and sentient being, which I think is a pretty big supposition.

According the Bible He does have a presence. Even you agree He can "do anything" so why would He not be able to communicate with His creation - a creation that He made to bear His image but to also be a reflection of Him (not become Him) to show others what He is like.

Why does God, an infinite being beyond our comprehension "have" to be a person to speak or do something?

I can't speak to brine shrimp, either. Well, I can speak to them, but they don't understand...they may, however, feel my voice vibrating through the water in which they live their lives.

We didn't create the shrimp nor the ocean they live in, with all due respect Mike, your analogy falls a bit short.

Next time you're in Noble canyon, think about how God made that for you to enjoy.

 

[MikeD]

According the Bible He does have a presence. Even you agree He can "do anything" so why would He not be able to communicate with His creation - a creation that He made to bear His image but to also be a reflection of Him (not become Him) to show others what He is like.

Why does God, an infinite being beyond our comprehension "have" to be a person to speak or do something?

We didn't create the shrimp nor the ocean they live in, with all due respect Mike, your analogy falls a bit short.

Next time you're in Noble canyon, think about how God made that for you to enjoy.

Andy, everything you're talking about assigns God a human-centric level of agency for actions. When you say "he can do anything," the very idea of God "doing" something models him after a human, albeit one with some kind of super-power to simply will things into existence. To put it philosophically, to posit God as doing somethings assigns him a role in the subject/object relationship, and I personally think he's above that. (Frankly, I think at the core of it, so are humans, except for our minds which create this duality, and in transcending it we may know God as best we might, and return to God or a state of Nirvana or what you will.)

God "making" Noble Canyon makes God a type of super-artist, and to say he "made it for me to enjoy" definitely posits us as humans as the center of God's universe and the apple of his eye (since we're apparently thinking of him as a human, why not give him eyes?). And I know your religion indeed says we as humans are special, but I really don't believe we're any more inherently special than the cats, dogs, trees, and rocks...we're an element of the same world is all. Understanding the ultimate relation of all these seemingly disparate elements in our fragmented perception is where I'd hope to experience God.

My point is that God is not a person or an agent who does things in the way you or I do, with humanlike motivations and reasoning...God is something so far beyond us and so alien to us (and I realize this is something we're not going to agree on) that to try and know God himself is fruitless. *Edit: I don't mean it's fruitless to pursue God, but I don't think we'll reach God directly. I think when we can understand our true relation to the world around us, it opens us to the totality of our existence, and that shows us God in a way; it might very well BE God.*

Perhaps we CAN glimpse something of God (though it won't be God we see, but our interpretation of a shadow), and maybe, in that moment I'd call enlightenment, we can open ourselves to God through this world. I don't think that means I'll ever understand God (and even you will admit God is a mystery), but I don't think that really bothers me.

I can't say I know much about God at all...all I can do is admit that God is probably far outside of my understanding as I make my own way in the world.

MD

PS I've never used the word God to describe what I'm talking about except in these conversations with you. I hope it's not disingenuous of me, and I'm actually getting comfortable saying it. But I think "God" is also an arbitrary human term, and what we're describing is far beyond our words.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Hey Mike, first thing I did not intend my response to you “shrimp” statement to be harsh or condemning. I’ve enjoyed our conversation and I respect your position.

Andy, everything you're talking about assigns God a human-centric level of agency for actions. When you say "he can do anything," the very idea of God "doing" something models him after a human, albeit one with some kind of super-power to simply will things into existence. To put it philosophically, to posit God as doing somethings assigns him a role in the subject/object relationship, and I personally think he's above that. (Frankly, I think at the core of it, so are humans, except for our minds which create this duality, and in transcending it we may know God as best we might, and return to God or a state of Nirvana or what you will.)

I guess my “issue” with trying to define God philosophically or logically is that we in our finite minds are trying to define an infinite being that operates within and outside of our understanding. This is not to say we cannot experience or comprehend some aspect of God, but I think any human effort to define Him falls short. If God is the infinite Creator of the universe, why then can He not have a role in the subject/object relationship and be above it?

God "making" Noble Canyon makes God a type of super-artist, and to say he "made it for me to enjoy"…

Which He is. This is interesting, if God is the ultimate artist the author of the most beautiful things in creation, then it would stand to reason which people group should be turning out the most creative artist? You would think the Christian community……….

….definitely posits us as humans as the center of God's universe and the apple of his eye (since we're apparently thinking of him as a human, why not give him eyes?). And I know your religion indeed says we as humans are special, but I really don't believe we're any more inherently special than the cats, dogs, trees, and rocks...we're an element of the same world is all.

I think when people get hung up of us assigning God humanlike characteristics they have it backwards. God has given humans God like characteristics - we are created in His image. Think about this, ask 10 people you know (who are not Christians) what they enjoy doing most what they find most fulfilling in life (I’m not talking about things like getting laid or high or whatever). I guarantee at the core of that activity it ties back to Genesis 1, it’s an activity of creating and ordering. Why is that? As humans we are created in the image of the Creator and wired to do things He does: create, love, build, enjoy……………

Understanding the ultimate relation of all these seemingly disparate elements in our fragmented perception is where I'd hope to experience God.

I would say outside of Him, one cannot experience the ultimate reality, because He is the ultimate reality.

My point is that God is not a person or an agent who does things in the way you or I do, with humanlike motivations and reasoning...God is something so far beyond us and so alien to us (and I realize this is something we're not going to agree on) that to try and know God himself is fruitless.

I agree that God does not have humanlike reasoning or motivations – the Scriptures even say “God’s ways are not our ways.”

*Edit: I don't mean it's fruitless to pursue God, but I don't think we'll reach God directly.

I’ll disagree with that, but I understand my point of view involves a “leap”.

*I think when we can understand our true relation to the world around us, it opens us to the totality of our existence…………

I agree with that, however to be truly open to the totality of our existence we have to truly open ourselves to the Creator.

*I don't think that means I'll ever understand God (and even you will admit God is a mystery), but I don't think that really bothers me.

I don’t think we’ll ever fully understand God in this reality, however I do think we can understand aspects of Him now.

PS I've never used the word God to describe what I'm talking about except in these conversations with you. I hope it's not disingenuous of me, and I'm actually getting comfortable saying it. But I think "God" is also an arbitrary human term, and what we're describing is far beyond our words.

Cool, I agree the word “God” is thrown around a lot and loses it’s meaning. It’s like your wife calling you “husband” instead of your proper name. This is why I like to call Him by His proper Name, YHWH.