Quote Originally Posted by Taosaur View Post
Put this way, I can affirm that you're talking about a real aspect of Being (or rather, talking about all of Being in an accurate manner), but why then personify it as "God" and "He"? This approach to God itself refutes the notion of God as an entity: the character in the storybooks of the monotheistic religions. This God created the world only in the sense that a tree creates leaves, not as a potter shapes clay.

Why draw a face on the universe? Why not just let it be?
I see what you're saying. I've called it "God" to relate it to, yet re-contextualize the old notions of God: the ones that have been criticized and passed off as nonsense; those that have created a bad image of God, whether it'd be that He'd punish humans or that He is a "sky daddy."

Even so, the personification on its own is just a language ideal, because to most people spiritual reality is hard enough to conceptualize. But "God the Father", for example, is symbolic and can help. The fact is, God is another name for Divine Reality. After saying that God and Reality are the same (which they are), but concluding that therefore the term "God" is irrelevant and "just Reality is enough" (materialism, most often), is just a naivete. Reality is exactly that, but God refers to Divine Reality. Both essentially the same, it's just that one is considered normal to human experience, whereas the other is extraordinary. I'd agree that Divine Reality is Nameless, but for the purposes of discussion, "God" is convenient to an extent.