G^D is NOTHING. The ABSOLUTE

So I started A Case for G^d yesterday. Not quite sure the X-tian focus as Karen establishes to be her vehicle for the Literalist's squandering episteme, is what I was looking for, you know as specifically showing the Xtian's fault in this, because we know it's global. And yet there are more Christians than any other religion--by only a few million, albeit more than Muslims. But I am in it for the immense scrutiny toward theism and its under-currents, we all would be better for in a braver understanding.
I'd call the problem in a loss of spirituality in today's social environment, a sense of entitlement. My renunciation of this kind of selfishness is realizing not much is within my control--and further I'M NOT going anywhere, no matter how pretty and a spectacle that object portending self-worth suggests. SO, Nothing is going on, and then and only then do I realize I must stand up in this material void and believe in people and their deficits... It is the comparison K. Armstrong makes with this vast technological age and the intense knowledge therewith, that makes what was done in the Axial age, when religion was the education, and synthesis of what came before was the idealic compassion necessary appease our G^d.
It sounds too much like a rhetorical device, but it is worthy mental practice to say G^D is NOthing, because if He were something then necessarily something else would be EXCLUDED. Pure LOgic dude. And further to say G^D is NOTHING, means anything that would place him in our compassionate edifice would necessarily be Transcendence. Definitely to get over the "little trouble" --the little trouble is being able to talk about IT. For me IT is the utter absence of hope as if my heart clutches at what my mind had assessed as numina. I can hold things in High Esteem, yes that is hopeful, but I'd rather imagine my path, because it's about Process, not the flare of thoughts that Belief in a relative notion of Goodness, is anymore than the nice effect of THAT moment in the day. It is only for a little while. Yes, that's fine--but the bigger picture is getting into a place of mindfulness over a direction in multiplicity. A proliferation of attitude is merging with the Objective fact, the Cosmic Now from the Subjective emoting notion. But, if we merge--things are hopeful--I'm not saying don't allow for that. But the spiritual nature of the world is our equalling an immense emptiness...while the still small voice screams we are at the threshold and need not be consumed by it. So hope is Imaginative Motive, ethereal Narrative=Inner-voice like our lightning path. But the mind is so 5 minutes ago 5 yrs ago 5 decades ago we have only to manifest what-IS and that being the path that led to the ocean's edge. We can go up the cosmic ocean, but can't get in. If we could get in "HOPE" would be the intuition the human condition provides about the lay of land where our sustenance would be found: Physical & Spiritual. But we have dreams, and ways and means get in the way to assume suffering gets jettisoned. IT is the path to forgive the Ocean that we might suffer, that we must willingly suffer...and so we learn. So, I have landed on your contention. WE are better off hoping, because forgiving the ocean means the ocean forgave us.
The Axial Age's Ideal in Compassion, is not only in G^D's justice:
SKILLFUL is a Buddhist term!! It IS "skillful" to chop wood. Like one story Karen Armstrong relates about a Chinese peasant out in a tall field with a sticky tipped stick catching grasshoppers--to roast. It becomes automatic, and he is "part" of that field with the tall foliage, and steady legged grasshoppers. Skillful means benevolent and moral, not just physically adept or an artisan's or tech's finesse. Because, someone could kill in an exacting way, but that wouldn't be skillful, because it goes against the compassionate edifice that a world in dormant repose purports. The world lies before us 3/4ths of "what-is" is buried beneath appearances. It sleeps. So, perhaps we should dream or have an imaginative narrative that respects its convalescence. Just back up to the sentence that says the world is dormant, it sleeps--it is skillful to take what people say as HOW they are without judging them. Perhaps our adversary is confused? That's possible. That she/he says something that doesn't "make-sense" to you, why IS all I am asking, does that mean she/he was lying? I could have heard out my nephew yesterday--about his customer. Yes, but I couldn't concentrate, and I zoned out when I got home because my eyes were seeing stars at the edges of any little lighter shade of a wall or floor, or sign, or corner of a TV, or monitor screen. It makes my cognition terrible, so I tune out in a big way. And strangely it happens about 90% of the time on Mondays. The tact that we can cut people off doesn't seem like an option, which I know folks agree to wily neally. But like I was saying IT is best to assume people are confused or ignorant and not sinister or lying, because though they may try to spin it in their own behalf, doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people. I define the middle ground--it's what I do. I will try to listen to folks better next time.