It seems rather strange to me anyway that anyone could have an actual one to one relationship with a godly being that seems so depended so much on one's own needs and desires, rather than in that being having a completely separate identity.
I don't think it should, given how we process and relate to anything in life. It's within the nature of the limited and imperfect, though the end of that relation is to be more in tune with the perfect and unlimited...in a way it's a parallel with Buddhist aspirations, which is why I suppose Merton sought a dialogue with them.
It seems more about what goes on in the individual own mind than anything based on a more factual reality that we can all observe.
All that really demonstrates is the Western reliance on the empirical, which we have to understand isn't the sum of and may only in fact be a reflection of what is.
Which is perhaps why there is never likely to be a religious consensus anytime soon?
I think the absence of consensus on God is mostly about pouring the perfect through the imperfect. I'm more surprised at how much we all agree upon.
If life is a journey then some of us will no doubt often change our minds along the way based on different times perceptions and circumstances. Where that might leave us in a search for an ultimate truth I wouldn't like to say.
Well, the only real journey has a destination. Else, you might as well be whirling. But as I believe in a purposed passage through the strictures of time and space, I take comfort in the notion that those who might be described as moving randomly may only be warming their muscles.
Sadly however we don't get to choose our own reality, we have to deal with what we got.
This isn't about choosing reality, but the context for the experience of it. And that is absolutely your choice.
I think that trying to believe it is something else may help some to function more smoothly but personally that doesn't really work for me.
Faith isn't something you "try" to believe or you're doing it wrong. It's the acceptance of a premise, a context, a frame, a point of reference. It isn't an effort and people who make it into one have chosen a peculiar ongoing series of choices instead.
Horrible notion, to my mind.
Religions exist to be attractive and to give life a supposed meaning, hope and a blueprint
That's one context. Here's another, religion exists as a purposed, joyful celebration of existence in recognition of the root and foundation of it. That's the blueprint. Following it is as simple as the Golden rule, awakening to the presence of God and seeing where that journey takes you.
, so who in their right mind would ever choose atheism, all things being equal, when your local friendly religious belief can take away all the pain and worry for you? :think:
Whoever told you that? You'll stump your toe, get irritating head colds, long and suffer the same way anyone does. Religion isn't a protection from, but an understanding of. Worry? It's useless for the most part, with or without God, but harder to hold onto with Him.
Unless the actual hard truth, warts and all, has some value maybe?
Well, we can't know what that is in the way an empiricist means it, only bits and pieces and speculation on the larger, to the extent that even has meaning.
But what if there's more to be had and a way to even make what is already apparent something greater and imbued with meaning? And what if the having is as simple as a contextual choice that robs us of literally nothing in the choosing except limitation in the name of a thing that cannot be demonstrated either?
Bon voyage, al. :cheers:
