Your question, Toosan, is a very good one. Thanks for asking it.
Though I am a licensed first level NLP practitioner, that is not by any means my source or main avenue for “understanding the (N)ature of God.” In fact, that is something I would never claim, as the word “understanding,” as we commonly use it, refers to an intellectual understanding. I think that we can agree that the Greater cannot be contained by the lesser. What we do do, up to a point, is to build, by some means or another, either by absorption or acquisition, deliberate or not, some way to think about our experience. Thinking comes to us naturally, as part of the human package. That thinking tends to mature through several stages and several levels of maturity. Some say that there are roughly nine such stages, each including but transcending the previous.
One of the things we think about is who and what we are. Those two can be, at least after a point, be readily distinguished from each other. And one of the things that we learn to do, some of us, anyway, is to think critically about our own thinking. Various disciplines address this, eg, philosophy in general, religion of course, and more lately in history, as we seem to become over-all more reflexive in our thinking, such things as epistemology, teleology, phenomenology, and other -ologies. Latest, but not all and in no order, of these are such things as General Semantics, NLP, & NS, at least as publicly recognizable and usable bodies of applicable ideas that do not result in witch hunts or burnings at the stake.
CopticChristian has brilliantly recognized that these were all used in some form by Our Master and other Biblical figures. For my part, I’d generalize that over the class of folks we might call “adepts” or “healers,” the latter being actually a title attributed to Jesus before some things changed in accepted Biblical language.
But the point here is, and I continue to agree with CC about this, is that the Parables of Jesus and His whole story give us material at different levels of engagement to do a “cut and paste” using portrayals of ideals as models to substitute for our often less-than-mature and undisciplined ways, particularly in regards to the Golden Rule and the Great Commandments, which in imho constitute all of the practicality of religion and philosophy. there is even a very discernible reason for this, but that is another book.
The beauty of NLP, etc, is that it seems to or can provide a step that appears to be inadequately addressed by religions, even ours. That is that while we are given what to cut and paste, we are lacking in techniques as to how. Prayer and contemplation may be helpful, but those work in another direction most usefully, if you ask me. And faith and morals are wonderful, but they are most usually imposed from without, with the added threat of damnation if they are not followed. These threats in the case of a mature Christian or one who is sufficiently accomplished in any functioning ethic, are completely unnecessary. Again, there is a reason for that, but you can figure it out on your own, if you think about it.
So what NLP and GS do for me, among others, relative to a spiritual life, is to inform me of certain conditions and dynamics of mentality that are useful for going beyond it, and reporting back within the framework of discursive thought more accurately what exactly transpired. If you read some of the mystics, and especially contemplatives, who are but advanced mystics, you will find that they are exquisitely adept at parsing their experience and teasing our meaning.
That is how these disciplines are useful to me, as tools, rather than ends, in a project of much larger scope than simply changing my mind. One can actually discover what mortal mind is, and have thereby a grounding in something that is ineffable, yet foundationally indispensable in the un-mattering of soul.
