"Now, what are we talking about again?"
Well, it seems like I've taken a vacation without intending to. Just life is good (and busy). But I'm anxious to get back to the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?" Before I go any farther, I want to define some terms:
Worldview: A working theory of everything that provides a context in which life, and specifically my life, happens. Everybody has one, even the most shallow people whose worldview consists of nothing more than their own satisfaction and pleasure and is no larger than 36 inches in any direction from the end of their, well, noses. A worldview is a mental model of reality. A framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs.
It is my contention that it is not possible for a human to live without a worldview. We should therefore select a worldview intentionally, rather than accept the one that grows all by itself subject to our environment. Experience will give us a worldview, but there's no reason to think it will give us the right one, the best one or one that is in our best interests. Our worldview forms us and gives us our identity. It's much too mportant to leave to chance. Isn't it reasonable for us to pick a worldview, then conform to that worldview? To view life through that lens? To interact with the world based on the rules and properties of the worldview we choose?
God: The best definition I know of, in that it is the broadest, most basic, yet still complete definition, came from St Anselm. The definition is "That than which nothing greater can be conceived". The original version assumes God to be a being, and I do not. Therefore, I'm not using a biased version propagated by Christianity. I use the term more conceptually. We may explore God as a force, an idea or anything else. So long as we cannot conceive of anything better, we're in bounds to characterize God any way that makes reasonable sense. Maybe a better way to phrase this definition is, "That than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Since all worldviews are circular in nature, we have to let each worldview tell us its story without ripping it apart. Every worldview has a God (at the center of whatever that worldview represents), and is based on that than which nothing greater can be conceived by that worldview.
Destiny: Basically Future with a twist. Future is whatever happens from this point forward in time. Destiny is what happens from this point forward in time AND what it is when it is finished AND what it will have been at the end even from the beginning. Example: The White house was built in 1792. It's future, as it was being built, was to be the place that U.S. Presidents lived and worked. It's Destiny (likely unimaginable in 1792, and still unfolding today) was to be the seat of power for the whole free world.
My contention is that every valid worldview has a destiny except one: The Abyss. The Void. There is no destiny there, because there is nothing there at all. This worldview will be the first one we look at. I think it will be pretty easy to eliminate it as an intentional choice, but it is the Default Answer, in lieu of any other reasonable choice.
Other than that, it is fair game for us to examine the destiny that each worldview claims to offer as part of the process. A worldview with a better destiny will likely make a better choice than a worldview with a less enticing destiny.
OK, we may have to define some more terms as we go, but this should get us started. Coming next: The Default Answer.