Thanks Tgr, for that description. You demonstrate some pretty nimble agility to be able to discuss your faith in secular terms, and I appreciate that. Assuming then, that you consent to some friendly probing of what you posted, I'll do that. But if it should cross a line for you at anytime, feel free to so signify and I will divert.

You hit upon several areas of key interest to me. First of course you describe the process of examination well, you understand it just fine, obviously.

Then you touched briefly upon the question of cohesion in the universe, and the impossibility of purely random evolution to account for what we today behold. That idea brings back the quantum physics discussion above. Part of what it means to demonstrate the Akashic Field scientifically is that evolution then is not random at all, but informed by every particle/space unit of all that has ever gone before. That book by Laszlo would be a read you never regretted if the nature of the universe is something that gives you pause. I find it vital to my endlessly unfolding understanding of the essential how it "isness" of the world.

Then you touched on what is called Theodicy which is the philosophical and theological argument for and against the reconciliation of evil with the concept of god. The arguments, centuries old and continuing to this day, while loftily intellectual without exception, all are inconclusive and most even by their own admission. It's a riddle. Some of the givens you submit toward the end of that part intrigue me, and forgive me for the poking to follow. I'm hoping through some humorous observation to prompt another level of inquiry not belittle your views. K? K.

The God as gentleman Theodicy will not work. I mean, what gentleman, for being excluded from any activity, would blithely smite thousands of people? Is that your suggestion? That a gentleman of any sort should be afforded the latitude for petulant violence and havoc does little to sooth the secularist or the faithful I should think. "Put me back in the picture, or else, " is that what you're saying?

So, if I apply a mindfulness model to the above unfolding, it looks like the mind comes out focused, and clear, touches the fabric of the universe question and remains clear and focused, but then the theodicy question derailed the clarity into a declaration which doesn't seem to match energetically or intellectually what was in the beginning.

So, to put it into a question form, what do you see when you re read that now? When you talk about god in relation to suffering, what shifts? That thinking in that moment, on the page at least, seems to veer from the kind of thinking that preceeded it a moment before. Without looking at what the thoughts are, can you see a difference in the "kind" of thinking between those moments.

I know this is all very abstract, and I'm fairly manic lately, but my inquiry is sincere. I'm getting something out of this, if it's not too difficult a thing to continue with. I really appreciate your candor and sincerity.