Hmmm. *scratches chin".
Our culturally biassed and contextual image of God is that of a male being, omnipotent, eternal, and existing outside the created world.
Sure. But I really don't think it would be God(ess) without some of those attributes, such as omnipotence and eternality, It would be something, but not God(ess), that which nothing is greater than.
Sirona introduced me to a new type of God (maybe one without caps, I'm not sure): a divinity who is human-like, framed within the human perspective , subject to suffering, growing and dying, like anything else in the visible universe.
As a Christian, I believe this already. God(ess) took human form, grew up in the world, was subjected to suffering, and died in more physical pain than most of us will experience when we ourselves die.
God(ess) became us, so that we could become It.
Isn't it time to face the fact that our western image of God is nothing more than our perspective on God with all its negative and positive aspects included?
A great deal of the popular image is. I try to strip as much away as I can. Almost all there is in this relativistic realm is perspective, and that perspective is reality to the beholder.
Why do we need to prove the existence of our God if it's only the perspective we feel comfortable with? And maybe more important: why do we need to rail at others with different perspectives? Are there any empirical clues pointing at the possibility of a transcendental God without referring to the superiority of our perspective?
I am only speaking for myself here, I merely am defending my own perspective on this board and I try not to condemn others. My history may not be entirely coherent, but I am far from a finished product.
tilting at windmills.