Deity- Static or Dynamic

The question of the nature of Deity has been a fundamental one for as long as human kind has been able to conceive of it. What is it? What is our relationship to it? Is it even an It? Empirically you can not prove that there is something that exists called Deity, by whatever name you may call it. It takes a level of mystical recognition to experience the nature of Deity and that is often in the realm of the philosopher or the cleric. It is through a mystical understanding of the universe, with a dash of scientific understanding that you can glimpse that topic. So in this essay I will use my own mystical understanding and that of the empirical world of science. I can not prove anything, just sense it. It is purely subjective.
First, I will tackle the questions that I presented at the beginning.
What is it? And its corollary, is it an It.
What Deity is, is all that is. Literally, "All that Is". You can not see it, because it is so vast that it encompasses all the Universe, and likely more than that, and is it, and It, that is the problem and limitation of language. It is more than an It. Because it is All That Is, it by definition includes all that there is, male, female, asexual, non-sexual, incomprehensible. Historically, such an idea was partially understood in the Ancient World before Christianity made it its personal business to define it in a masculine image, according to the patriarchic world-view that eliminated all possibilities of any other form, at least on the upper classes where the money and power was. To the working classes it made little difference as long they could lead a productive life. In the last Century before the start of the Current era, in Greece, there was a movement in religious philosophy that identified a Deity that was unknowable, and identified that with a highly transcendant aspect of Zeus. I say that because we have the highest cognitive ability, as far as we know, on this planet, we can begin to grasp some of the nature of Deity. But by its very transcendant nature, though it makes it hard to understand its vastness, but as you can get an idea of the earth from a globe, so can you come to know something as vast as Deity is by looking through the eyes of the telescope. But we are inside of Deity, and to understand Deity is to look on us as a mere speck of an electron, a quark, of an atom, of a molecule, in an organ as a part of the entire organism. Whew!
Now you might say we are insignificant in that veiw though. Not so, for in so realizing we do something that is akin to the very nature of Deity that of understanding. For every last quark of an electron, neutron or proton is an integral part of that whole being. It can not be separated form it. But unlike that quark we have consciousness and by that the capacity to understand that whole.
I said this is a mystical understanding, didn't I.
Now comes the good part. What do we perceive the Deity to be? Well, a philosopher, whom I don't know the name of, once said that we create God in our image, not the other way around. We can better relate to Deity that way, so we see Deity as God, or Allah, or whatever, and whatever the depiction it is not as anything else but in something recognizable. I am not saying that they do not exist, that is not true, but they all are part of the whole, and are different ways of seeing the Deity. All are equally valid points of veiw.
That is a point to recognize, our understanding of Deity must come from the realm of our perceptions in order to have seemingly the belief that Deity is something we can communicate with. In reality, we are in constant communication as we are an integral part of Deity, so it our lack of understanding that limits us in that communication while on other level of our existence we never are out of communication with Deity.
As I stated before, we create our understanding of Deity because we can bring it down into a level where we can understand it. So we create it in our own image.
That brings me to the point where I really want to go. That is the nature of Deity Static or Dynamic. Many Christian and Muslim believers think in terms of the Static Deity, or that is my perception of what is that they believe. This means that what the Deity has proclaimed through a human agent at sometime in the past is the same as the Deity is today. So therefore the Deity that they see often comes across in their sacred literature as being cruel, and hateful at one time and kind and generous at others depending on what that form likes or dislikes about the Deities followers,or non-followers.
Is this true though? No. It is a misrepresentation of the nature of the Deity, usually to make a point for that's partisan side. Why make the point? Power. The power to control people. And who exercises that power depends on the structure of the institution that is created by the Prophet, that human agent that could have received that understanding with either the idea of getting power, or of a genuinely Spiritual message. That can be a tricky area to walk for the understanding of the human receiving the Spiritual message. It depends on the time, culture and the individuals life experiences. Human comprehension can be limited. Those limits can be from the difficulty of translating the Spiritual into the limiting nature of the human symbolic system. Like a wire, there is so much voltage it can carry before it can get to the point it overloads or the signal gets distorted. Language is limiting, and since we have not been able to use the full width or our telepathic connection, where pure thought needs no translation into symbolic form, thus we limited by semantics. Another factor is that it can get miscommunicated to others even when the original receptor received the message in realtively a complete understanding, or it can be deliberately be distorted so that the message becomes a pawn in a game of control.
But is Deity really Static? Does it never change? I look out into the Cosmos and see the Universe as dynamic. Science has found that the Universe everywhere is dynamic, from the minutest particle we see, to the grandest structure of the Universe at the limits of our technological reach.
I like to use the analogy of linguistics to explain this. A living language is a language that is constantly changing, evolving, coming from the inner workings of the people that speak it. When that language no longer changes then it is said to be a dead language, like Latin. It never will change again, and the only ones that speak it are those that learn it not as a dynamic language but as an Ecclesiastical language that serves only as a means of elitist communication.
If Deity is dead then the Universe would not change and that is not what I see. And Deity is not outside of it for then how could it possibly participate in its creation, and as a mystic I understand that Deity is imminent in its creation.
Now why am I going to such lengths to discuss the dynamism of Deity. The answer is in my incomprehension of the way Deity is depicted as Static. Would the Deity create something that it would call flawed? And condemn it to the worst of all possible outcomes where there is no chance of Spiritual growth, that is a cruel Deity. and indeed is not a creator at all and is as flawed as the creation itself. No, the Creator, the nature of Deity in Dynamic action is that of a ever growing Deity that creates with the intent of learning something about itself like an artist that is creating from the heart.
So if your God is a living God then it should always produce that which it is important to the on-going evolution of the Deity itself, and all of its parts.
Hermes