Hi Gerald.

Yes, I understand why you might struggle with such language. As you say, we don't have the proper language, which reminds me of that well-known aphorism “the map is not the territory”. I would also suggest the possibility that words like Father, Son might be anthropomorphisms of such processes. Humans have a tendency to do this – how else could they represent God in art, for example? I do of course accept the reality of intention, or at least the appearance of it. But, as we both agree, if it looks like a duck... Intention may emerge, however, at a level lower than the ultimate Ground of Being.

All other significant spiritual traditions say things along the lines of what Durr says here. In your eyes Christianity says something different. So you have a choice. Either, like many Christians, you say your religion is superior and everyone else has got it wrong, or you show some humility and contemplate the possibility that the other traditions may have got it right. For what's it worth, I've received more claps (in a short space of time) than usual for this article, and several favourable responses.

I think that dual aspect monism, while 'true', is an oversimplification. The oneness referred to would be the Everything which has emerged from the Nothingness, the One of neo-Platonism etc.