I note you claim closeness to Unitarian-Universalism -- the view that there is one unfractured god and everyone will be saved, as opposed to Puritanism (from which it sprang) with a triune god that could not be broken like a wafer on dotted lines and of whose believers only a tiny elite would be saved. Emerson and Cotton Mather.
My own view is essentially nominalist-nihilist, nunatarian-minimalist. I believe essentially that no actual gods exist, but only their ineffable names -- I wish that people would not go around chanting effing names. I believe that the name of god is inexpressible, and I wish that people would not go around expressing it since it is obviously impossible. People who do impossible things really annoy me. On the other hand, I believe that nuns exist -- some of them dried and pickled (I've seen them!) -- and no more people will be saved than turns out to be absolutely necessary (partly an effect of the vanishingly small or even negative U.S. propensity to save). So there are many salvation functions. <person i>(#gods,#saved) as i=1 ... inf):
nihil(0,~0); mark(1, large); mather(3, ~9).
Just remember that there are no roads created by God, and feet make roads by walking.
I believe that Michael Jordan is the best evidence for the existence of angels I know of. Even though his breast-bone does not project 7 feet from his backbone, and he is theoretically incapable of unpowered flight, I believe that he actually flies and I've seen it on film. There a skeptics who dispute this. We'll all miss him from our purview far more than any other person, including Mother Theresa or Princess Diana. Pity about the foul shots, though -- he was much better than Mother Theresa or Diana at the line. |
