Firstly, I see no reason to distinguish between consciousness and form because consciousness without form is such an absurd idea based upon the evidences. If the universe was arranged in such a way we would expect to see some sort of effect upon the material caused by the immaterial. Because if the immaterial consciousness was incapable of interacting at all with the material, then we would be in a functionally monist universe which could not be affected by consciousness or other 'immaterial' things. So a dualistic universe must have effects that cannot be explained by an inspection of the material world. Thus far, I must say your evidence for such a universe is rather thin indeed.

Secondly, the specifics of your particular deity do not interest me except perhaps as ways to show how ridiculous an idea they truly are. Everything being sacred for instance, is little different than there being no sacredness at all. After all, if everything is sacred, then nothing is special in that sense and more worthy of consideration than any other thing. The logical net effect is not to worship anything, because all things are equally deserving and you could never in the lifetime of the universe give them due consideration. Do you see what I am saying? If everything is sacred, why would sacredness matter at all?

Thirdly, I intend the rudeness. Your ideas are laughable, and I find them about as worthy of respect as the concept of a flat earth or a geocentric universe. I expect you to show similar disrespect for my ideas if you find them similarly ridiculous. I do not expect you to show my ideas any respect they have not earned and I will do the same to yours. Ideas and people are only worth respecting if there are good reasons to respect them. If you do not share my ideas and you don't have any reason to respect them, the only reason you can have for respecting them is an attempt to take a non-existent moral high ground on this issue.