Section 1:
I'll go along with your definition of the enlightened mind. I would hope everyone would. But there is no universal or even majority defintion of that word or the definition you constructed. But to your definition I would add an understanding of Boolean logic, alegebra, and to discern spin from reality.
Section 2:
"Ok, now a totaly seperate perspective a seperate discussion. Is there a seperate God. Where is the proof? You asked.
It is uncomprehensible to us. If it exists, it prefers to be anonymous. Why would it prefer to be anonymous? So we can learn through our experience of seperation from it in this reality."
This is nonsense and you know it. To say "it prefers to be anonymous" is equivalent to saying "I haven't a single shred of evidence to support my belief system." Because you know darn well any half-way intelligent person is going to ask you how you know it prefers to be anonymous.
And thank you but we can learn through our experience without it existing so it is equivalent to the theoretical vacuum. If it exists it has no effect so it doesn't exist since no effect can be determined. That, Justine, is the definition of non-existence.
Section 3:
"We are an evolving god."
This is pure unadulterated fluff. We could just as easily be an evolving invisible purple rhinoceros. We aren't invisible yet but we are getting there. We aren't purple yet but a lot of us are already pink so we're getting there. Come on ... you can do better than this. This is just new-age nonsense.
We are what we are what we are. Period. Godlike? Come on now ... to say that we, collectively, are god, is just to spin-doctor the word. That is not what the word means and it is disingenuous to redefine the word to mean something completely different than it has meant throughout all of human history.
PS: Last time I checked the collective we did not invent smallpox.
Section 4:
Do you read what you write?
Here's what you wrote in 3: "A third perspective WE are an evolving God" and in 4: "Hey, another perspective ... We are an evolving God." Do you see a little problem here?
It is not just another repackaging of new-age spin doctoring and packaging ... it is the exact same words.
I once again challenge you to use your own brain rather than parroting what you've read.
