I’ve never thought about it this way. I at least believe in something within consciousness which does not depend on what I decide, which in fact sets the limit on what I may decide or even become aware of to consider.
Does it bring everything into being? How in the world are we to know that? I don’t think it matters. We should be content with what is within our reach, do our part and be grateful for all that gets done that does not depend on us without which we could not experience all we do.
An idea will have to do. Directly knowing factually is off the table in my opinion so long as we are in the lesser, dependent half of this relationship.
Yes, the divine reality is what everything else depends on for existence while it is unconditionally nondependent. Hinduism and Buddhism admit they have no idea as to the nature of that reality, but then in practice think and believe as though they do. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim to have revelation from the divine reality (God), and so to have some limited knowledge of him.
I would think that the reason for believing in God is that a person experiences that belief to be true. And that brings me back to what kicked all this off to begin with: God is not the conclusion of a line of argument, but the subject of an experience report. Those who believe in God do so because they have experienced God. That’s why God’s existence is not in need of proof; it is not a hypothesis.
While we can talk about, it’s curious how the empty set is a kind of horror vacui. Even in imagining nothing, it is nevertheless observed from one’s point of view. And as a practice in meditative non-dualism, the nothingness may be seen as the unending fullness or emptiness of being.
I was thinking more along the lines of the law of inertia: Any body not acted on by another body will continue in motion if in motion and continue at rest if at rest. Of course, “body not acted on by another body” is an empty set. Fortunately symbolic logic can handle that.
And a person who acts without being acted upon? Another curious feature is how objects in the world are not observed to be capable of this. They act when acted upon.
Everyone must move toward the truth which is given to them to recognize no matter how strong the case may be for thinking it so. The question that comes to mind for me concerning Hinduism and Buddhism is whether they are being honest and appropriately humble in the way they regard the truth they have been given.
The question that comes to my mind in relation to the truth as these religions conceive it is how can all three be correct? How can any of them claim to exclusively have the right of it? From the point of view of Christianity, Judaism becomes cessationist too soon while Islam is too late. Perhaps comparisons where religious faith is concerned are just best avoided. If one’s religious beliefs accord with the truth in which one has faith perhaps that is enough. Why should religious faith be a zero sum game where any who disagree with me can only be wrong? I tend to see religions that take that position as insufficiently humble.
With regard to the J,C,I traditions: the NT says that Xnty is the fulfillment of Judaism. The makes a Xn an honorary Jew. Islam is tougher to make peace with because the NT also sys that God has “finished speaking in a Son whom he has appointed heir of the universe.”
But such differences do not effect one’s final destiny. My re-reading of the NT for this last book convinced me beyond a doubt that it teaches that when Christ returns all will believe and all will end up in God’s Kingdom. The judgment is moral, not religious. The prophets, Jesus, Paul, Peter all put it this way: “And every man will be judged according to his works whether they be good or evil.”
An idea which sells poorly amongst Jews. Which, IMO, has inspired official Jewish approval of conversion, not to Christianity, but to Noachidism. Barring conversion to Judaism, no non-Jew will ever be a Jew, honorary or not.
That’s disappointing. Seems like more and more people are adopting universalism. And I’m sure I’d be there with the rest of you if it had not been for God convicting me of my sin and convincing me that I deserved to go to hell. Before this experience, I identified more with the liberal preachers about sin.
The NT warnings, ironically, are more severe for those who identify as Christians.
Tied to the experience of being convicted of my sin (it’s quite a story) I heard this sermon from Jude and it scared me in a way a sermon had never scared me before:
“Woe to them!.. These are hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast with you without fear, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.”
Yes, they are. The NT goes out of its way to say that “Judgment begins with the house of God.” Since the judgment is moral rather than religious, it cuts across all divisions and holds those who should have known better more accountable.
