i'd say there is a spectrum of comprehension, from lowest to greatest: > atheism ("nothing". unadultered "rng". plain, abstract language -- dissolution of experience and meaning.) > monotheism (one "god". "rng" through the whims of a singular stand-in, an egregore created by few. language as tool of tribal governance.) > polytheism (many "gods". balance and natural/social order through benelovent egregores, manifested by many. language as tool of civilizational curation.) > henotheism (all "gods". egregores as emanations of something greater. language as a tool of civilizational mediation, rehabilitation and guidance.) > pantheism (all. the 'common denominator' or 'creative, generative principle'. language as a tool of inquiry beyond the veil of human experience.) language is first and foremost enabling you to articulate questions -- not answers. there exist infinitely many questions to which plain language itself will never be able to provide any meaningful answers to. the singular most universal expression of faith is the question, not any particular answer. take the christian conceptions of "heaven" and "hell", at their core they constitute no more and no less than an archetypal conception: a kharmic system. for a christian, still in the custody of "clergy" and its uninspired language, these may really be distant dimensions of eternal reward and punishment doled out by curiously-anthropomorhpic, clearly comprehensible arbiters of "faith". for an atheist it may just be an archaic means of subjugation at best and a fairy tale at worst. now for you, let me tip my fedora, too: > your life is nothing but a series of deaths. perceptual, conceptual, emotional, physical -- cellular, if you will. > every series of events you may experience is nothing but a rollercoaster of afterlifes. > your actions in your life, the conscious 'now', create the "hell" or "heaven" of your death, in the unconscious 'then'. (cont.)
Germany