Doug, God is:
1. All loving and oh, by the way, he has eternal torment waiting for us if we don’t believe in him.
2. All knowing, but when he wiped out everyone but Noah and his family to purify the human race it didn’t work.
3. The savior of all humanity on condition of belief, but he didn’t bother to tell most of the world about the savior they were supposed to believe in for many centuries after he supposedly came to save them.
4. Superior to Satan, whom he consigned to hell, but apparently left the cage door open long enough for Satan to make his way into Eden to tempt Adam and Eve.
5. The loving father of us all, but the Jews are the chosen people and only the Christians are saved.
As we all know, this list could go on and on for quite some length.
Understanding that, why are you concerned about obscuring “God?”
I understand your point, but I don’t agree with it. My point is that God is a concept, probably thousands of vastly different concepts if we add them up all over the world. It’s not a matter of putting forth my own idea, or any individual’s idea of “what God is.” I don’t have any single idea of “what God is.” God is whatever concept people have when they conceive of God. Some of those ideas have strengths, others have grievous weaknesses. I want to take people away from traditional concepts of God to get them to think about all the other things it might mean, because if I can do that, I’ve gotten them to think a litttle differently than they were conditioned to think. Even a little of that is a good thing; if someone is completely stuck with a single, rigid conception of God, there’s pretty much nowhere to go but up. It’s like prying loose one pot that’s stuck into another: sometimes you have to wiggle it back and forth quite a bit before it comes loose. If I’m getting people to question their assumptions about “what God is,” I suppose we could call that obscuring things, but that’s not how I choose to look at it.