You know when it comes to religion I've always had a rocky relationship with 'classical (mono)theism' Abrahamic style,ever since I was little. In a sense,I can say that I'm an atheist but definitely not anti-religious with inclinations to scientism like say Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, but nor would I say I'm even anti-theistic.
This really resonates with me
God does not exist. He is being-itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny him.” (Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology. Vol. 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1951: 205).
I remembering looking thru wiki pages at about the history of atheism in different religions and this variant brought up by Paul Tilich astounds me,not the least b/c he's got some philosophically going on with (I would hope

) an honesty. I've read "The courage to be by him" and the influence of Heidegger on him shows. Astounding how he still believes in Jesus and in a social mechanism created by him ("a Church"). It's brought up in a handful of paragraphs during the last part of the "the courage to be". Thinking of God as "the ground of being" really puts a new twist on what nihlism means.
`_` And all that while (maybe this is one reason why it was a fairly complicated read)..he didn't even mention love. Had it been mentioned, I have this hyperboleous thought in my mind that the original manuscript would have like started glowing and exploded taking Paul Tilich with him "^u^ .
Part of the appeal I find in that quote is how it's unconventional statement of what God is kinda of puts a thrust to make thinking a neccesity when it comes to making the connection btw God and some disturbing ash s---t humanity can evoke. Oh,the paradigm shift which would be brought on phenomonology and teleological frameworks few ppl ever really understood in the first place and struggled to math up with irl.
Now the ethics which could be come with that quote/centered on such a conception of God might turn out fairly different than what classical monotheism has made so far but...meh, I'll get to ironing that out eventually. For non-theistic religious ethics I've found Buddhism quite handy and astounding in it's capability to pull that off although I'd really be interested in understanding a Kantian take on ethics.
Of course what I say here like anything is subject to flux.If I honestly could say my more "full" spiritual orientation,it's that you can call me,treat me and think of me as a monotheist as you please but behind the conviction one might have I'm really more of a "panentheist with transtheistic aspirations"
Transtheism is a term coined by philosopher Paul Tillich or Indologist Heinrich Zimmer[1] referring to a system of thought or religious philosophy which is neither theistic, nor atheistic, but is beyond them.
Sure, I suppose the way it can be seen, my belief lends itself to agnosticism b/c of how I'm 'working with gradients'

..
A cosmotheologically functioning God of classical monotheism who is followed by adherents with something which usually is not much past surpassing stage 2 on Fowler's stage of faith development with a nigh-animistic fervor is likely there as well but tbh someone I'm getting to dang weary on waiting on for functioning,even though I'm sure he can handle criticism against him.
Gender inflective language not being the least among the heat given to along with the problem of evil ,scientism and more things about relational ontology.
I guess if someone called me a deist,
I could take it it as a perojative if it weren't my prioritization of love.