God, Jesus, Unconditional Love, Peace, Harmony, Truth, Life, 'Existence' are all Singularities in my opinion. As humans we live in a Dualistic reality where we think of opposing sides to things (which stops you experiencing singularity with God). I think God and Jesus are part of teaching singularity, however, when you take something you learn as an extension to duality you turn it into something quite dangerous. This is what extremism is.
Things divide, churches divide, groups divide, opinions divide, we divide, all based on duality. But to me God stands for the amalgamation of things, of people, of views, perspectives. Even modern Christianity as we know it, and the Bible we hold so dearly is an example of this, because it was an amalgamation of Paganism and Christianity, and as a whole has it not created more good? Or, does the bible need to be divided out again, to hardcore Christians who believe it partially, and new/scientific thinkers who believe it partially?
Who destroys The Word or The Breath of God, is it 'we' who amalgamate it and try to love enemies until there are none, or is it 'those' who teach division and isolation and fear? 'We' talks about us as a singular, 'Those' talks about them as the opposition, whether Muslims, or gays, bigger-sinners, less-devout, less-self-righteous.
What I observe is that it is love which is the bridge, and yet it is rarely the focus.
When one stops, and focuses on love and asks them self, am I judging or am I extending love for my neighbour, then you see that love is the singular. And using reading comments as an example, if judging them, you merely see division, more than you see a human being behind the words. What is there to learn, from giving proof of division? And 'online' which is of course not written about in the bible, has a habit of saying, we are all on own virtual islands, rather than one digital land mass. And what is there to gain from that dualistic reality? Nothing. The same as endless arguments.
And I am by no means innocent in my judgements of comments, for example, recently observing comments by dcontroversal about guns. I personally don't agree with thinking guns are great and everyone should have them. However all I did in opposition which lead to assumption, is create division. And BenFTW I know I felt in opposition to some of your comments at some point where you appeared (to me) a little homophobic in your comments, and maybe you are not - however I was more humble in those comments. You weren't exactly glorifying a thought against gays, like dcontroversal and friends were talking in glorification of guns. You seem like a learned guy to me.
And I say the last paragraph from the stand point of love.