Logician: …It doesn’t take anyone’s spiritual well being into consideration as that is a secondary “goal” in a world that is ripping itself apart.

Djs: Secularism has done more damage and been the demise of more individuals within the 20^th Century than any form of religion – Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao …

Having said that: To suggest ‘the spiritual well being of the individual’ is not to be considered is to suggest the spiritual well being of the individual is unimportant and thus non-existent. In short, to suggest ‘the spiritual well being is not to be considered’ is to suggest the physical is the ultimate, only, form of existence.

Sp demonstrates both the physical and spiritual are real and significant to the dynamics of the whole of reality.

This is the third manner by which the model symbiotic panentheism demonstrates its validity.  

Logician: …Inventing a “new” interpretation of God and whatever it is supposed to be and represent is new paint on an old wall. …

Djs: There is no ‘inventing’ or ‘new’ interpretations involved with symbiotic panentheism.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and moves forward from there.

Symbiotic panentheism begins with the existing definition of God, God is the creator of the physical universe, and moves forward from there.

Logician: …What my thesis can deliver is a here and now solution to all of human suffering and allow all peoples to “redefine” just who they are, and in this process they automatically start to address they spiritual well being and what they are as an individual and as a nation and as a species. The difference between us is clear.  I give all humans and everyone that has ever existed that right to believe exactly what they want to believe …

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism takes no ‘rights’ away from anyone other than the ‘right’ to interfere with another’s journey.

Logician: …irrespective of a solution that saves them, …

Djs: Symbiotic panentheism is simply a model and as a model it clearly demonstrates there is no ‘saving’ involved, for the essence of the individual is timeless, immortal, never dies.

Logician: …you version saves them too but only after they all capitulate to your way of thinking as shown in your responses over that last few months in our correspondence. …

Djs: Again, there is no ‘saving’ involved.

Logician: …You do not accept a supposed “wrong” interpretation of your work,

Djs: Sure I do, I just expect those who suggest the work is ‘wrong’ to back up their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ with dialectics steeped in reason demonstrating their statement that the work is ‘wrong’ as opposed to simply stating the work is ‘wrong’ and concluding that the statement in itself is enough to prove them correct.

Logician: …to in fact even though I begged you to understand they are all correct, your “hackles” rose again and stated that there is no room for literal discretion.

Djs: My ‘hackles rose’, as you say, when you suggested you had the ‘right’ to take what I said and ‘interpret’ it as you saw fit. I stated that what I said is what I meant and just because you might say I meant something else does not make it so.

I also stated that I am human and do make mistakes, have made mistakes, and will in the future make mistakes in terms of how it is I verbalize the model.

There was no anger, resentment or sensitivity involved. I simply made a factual statement, namely: Regardless of how one personally interprets my statements, my statements are what they are, my statements are not open to the twisting, misinterpretation or misdirection of others.

Logician: …Hell, I don’t think that your interpretation of a god is worthy of being divine if it can’t get over “recurrence”.

Djs: But the model clearly demonstrates not only that ‘God’ can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but demonstrates ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’. Your model only states God ‘can’ circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ but has nothing to offer regarding ‘how’ God can circumvent ‘eternal recurrence’ other than ‘we don’t know how God can but It can’.