God isn't Good, Hate is a Logical Misconception

Good needs bad to define it. If God is good, then he can't exist without ''bad.'' If God is synonymous with ''good,'' then he needs the struggle between good and evil in order to exist. God simply ''is.'' God can be described as the principle which has no opposite. Living things are expressions of God in the physical realm.

1.) ''God is love,''
2.) Hate is the void of love.

If God is love, and God simply ''is,'' then that which is the void of love is the void of what is.

If God is omnipresent--fully present everywhere, then the ''void of God'' is an impossibility.

Hate isn't so accurately described as ''a void,'' as it is ''a logical misconception,'' It is regarded as something, when really, it doesn't exist, except in the mind. Hate's existence is contrived through logical means based on false premises.

Pervasive Religious Equality

I propose that the fundamental principle of agnosticism is a healthy way to approach religion.

No religion is correct; it's just not something religions can be. If a religion could be proven, it would be called knowledge, since faith has no room to work in the absence of doubt. Religions are just tools to help us understand the true nature of reality. People were not made to serve religion; religion was made to serve people. Exclusive devotion to religions can be a very dangerous thing because they're built on faith, not solid facts. No religion ought to be praised and exalted above the rest, as though it is more of a religion than any others--as if its preservation is more important than the founding doctrines thereof. Religions, themselves, cannot be proven, and their interpretations are not always in accord with the religion itself.

Different religions are like shards of a broken mirror, and by looking into each of them, they all point to the same thing. No two shards will look quite the same; there are as many versions of religion as there are people.

Differences in religion are not very important to me, but God, on the other hand, is very important to me.

I used to worry about others' versions of God, whether or not they were ''the true God.'' By the former reasoning, any deviation, no matter how slight, is still a deviation and therefore tragically blasphemous. I would wonder, ''how do I know they're worshiping the same God I worship?'' Well, what that question really asks is ''How do I know they're worshiping the same perception of God that I have?''

But encountering God is a matter of faith--that is, God cannot be known. If God could be known, then it would not be a matter of faith, but of evidence and proof. As soon as I try to perceive/understand/qualify God, who cannot be known, I have put God into a box that no one else can quite mimic. No one's perception of God is quite the same, so no one's version of God is quite the same, so there are as many versions of God as there are souls. I can't perceive God quite the same way as anyone else does.

God cannot be known. It's a matter of faith, and faith has no room to operate in the absence of doubt. God can only be loved. It's not the religion or the practise, or even the name of God that makes any bit of difference. It's the love for God.

Worrying about others' versions of God, then, is not my business. When I ask God to bless someone, is it my responsibility to ensure that God does His part of the job? Doesn't God deal with a person's heart? The most, best, and only truly effective means of helping someone encounter God is to love them.

Love God, love each other.