The idea that differing views of God are associated with points of consciousness is an intriguing one that has enormous significance in this discussion. As an example, if the limited God experience is aroused by fear of danger, as well as of evil, the god that is invoked is the one who can protect. As suggested earlier, this God is usually perceived to be the judgmental authoritative one of the Old Testament. It follows that the individual who is drawn to this experience of God feels powerless to create his own experience. He feels vulnerable to evil and to the world as a whole. Thus he supplicates himself to the will of this almighty, though wrathful God, uttering prayers in pleas for mercy and forgiveness for his sinful nature. He lives his life with the intention of obtaining salvation from the fires of hell in the "afterlife".

The believers in this God see everyone as vulnerable. They are inclined to feel that while they themselves may be doing God's will, if others in the society anger God, they will then still be vulnerable to His wrath by virtue of being human. This God is widely perceived as not being very discriminatory when it comes to raining down his wrath. Therefore it is in their interest and the interest of society if everyone submits to the will of God (as they believe it to be). This is the point where things begin to get a little dicey. This response to God goes beyond the personal and private realm, to where its adherents try to compel others to accept their view and often act with intolerance toward those who won't.

Now we should be clear that not all who consider themselves religious are committed to such a fundamentalist approach. Some may find great wisdom within the teachings of Christ by viewing the stories as symbolic. For them, Christ can be an inner experience. To the extent that this is so, they are oriented toward an expanded rather than a limited experience of God. The teachings consistent with an expanded consciousness are not contrary to religion. Fundamentalism, however, rejects such teachings precisely for the reason that they are not consistent with literal interpretations. More accurately, they do more than reject these ideas; they assertively push against them.

Clearly, the limited response to God is not a private personal one. If it were, its believers would not be critical or concerned about ideas of God that differ from their own. The religions built around this relationship to God become very insistent that others follow the same moral rules they do. This invokes a reaction from those who don't see God in this way. They complain that this is tantamount to those who we might describe as "outer focused", imposing their morality upon others. While non-literalists may believe that rules and laws are a necessary and good thing for an orderly society, at the same time they believe that their relationship to God can and should remain a private matter. In fact they might not even view moral values as dictates from God, but rather as an immanent characteristic of Universal Subconscious Mind of which everything, including man is an expression.

Compare the outer focused response to that of the God of unity. The latter is a mostly private experience motivated by inner empowerment and peace and love. (Precisely because it is an individual experience, not subject to dogma, it's a little bit more difficult to define.) Love has a particular spiritual meaning inseparable from the idea of unity. The focus upon unity and love negates fear, since fear is a symptom of disunity. Here God is an inner power. Prayers, rather than being a plea for mercy, are an affirmation of the individual's oneness with this power. These affirmation prayers are utilized to attune oneself with Infinite Mind toward attainment of inner peace. The motivation to remain united (in love) is not to seek protection but rather because it feels good. In this experience of God, feeling good is a cue that one is in harmony with spiritual laws.

Those who experience God in this way, know that the circumstances of their lives are under their own control. They understand that they create their life experience and are not victims of outer conditions or other people. They don't view man as inherently evil. They view evil as an illusion, simply an outgrowth of errors in thinking. Therefore they have no inclination to control others or to make them think as they do. They are not obsessed with judging others. When they catch themselves doing it, they realize that they are engaging in thoughts which will only cause separation within themselves. They understand that their private work in the spiritual realm is to become more tolerant and more allowing, more loving, i.e., less focused upon others.

This leads me to make clear that when we discuss the limited view of god, it is to make comparisons-not to criticize it. Those of us oriented toward the expanded perspective may prefer the God of unity but that does not mean that we wish to suppress or push against other views. First we realize that attempting to push against ideas we don't prefer only produces more manifestations of them, for according to a commonly accepted spiritual principle, what we resist persists. Secondly, we know that other's reality is none of our business; their life is a matter of their own thoughts and choices. Now, of course, this is the whole point, isn't it? We can choose to focus on thoughts of fear or thoughts of love. Fear thoughts are based upon illusions of the ego, while love is based upon Universal Cosmic Truth. So the teachings of expanded consciousness are aimed at moving us away from the illusions of the ego. We may think this direction is "better" but that does not mean that we have any stake in assessing other views as wrong.

If That God Isn't God, Then Who;
The God That Religion Created