The God thing for me seems to be such a simple problem. I don't choose, or dismiss, but indulge in all religious mythology. By doing so my idea of the divine is so much vaster than all religions put together. The Creative Forces of Life, by whatever name are just that. 'God' is a name, and a definition that comes with it. You cannot box the Creative Forces of Life. The perceived 'divine' is in all aspects of the creative, even the negative. The divine, by any name is life, and the universe we are within. To me, the divine is all names, and at the same time nameless, and as omniscient as the very atoms, or sub-atomic particles that provide substance. I see the whole divine, 'God', in every face, every aspect of life, that I revel in, but I refuse to delineate with a name. If I want to name a divine force, if I have a story to give human reference, I recognize this as only part of a whole just as we are all pieces of the whole of life, the divine. We call ourselves 'I', but in reality, we are innumerable parts that can be infinitely reduced. How can 'God' be anything but a reflection of reality? Is life not diversely miraculous, amazing, bewildering, unfathomable, and so on? Why do we need stories of a man/diety who can do tricks for us to prove the existence of the divine and miraculous? Who needs only belief when one simply needs to open their eyes to find divine creative forces in the reality of every day? For me religious argument is so unnecessary, since I find some answers in all spirituality. I don't believe the same way that Mormons believe, however, I appreciate their deep (somewhat cultic) sense of family and community. Still I like to base my believes firmly on what I witness in reality, often scientifically proven, using mythology as metaphor and lesson, not the undaunted truth. That being said, still I can understand the ambivalence in the general population of level headed thinkers (and non-religious types) towards Mitt Romney's religious beliefs and convictions.
More information about text formats