Anybody else here getting tired of the people who always want to say that you're wrong?

The "above average" student who tries to use science to debate whatever they can.
The religious zealot who uses arguments such as "Well, you're going to hell. That's just the harsh reality of it."
Or maybe just the goddamn skeptics who like to deny the existence of anything above them simply because they can never get enough proof.

Makes me freaking irate.

We should all do something about these people. Any suggestions? Maybe organized genocide? Mass marginalization and eradication? War? LOL. (It's funny cause those are all basically the same thing.) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif)

But no really. Something ought to be done about people like this. Maybe we could start a movement to pass a bill making it illegal to deny another person's beliefs, so that a person has to state that it is only their opinion. I mean really it should all be categorized as hate speech anyway. If I started saying in a public building that all Mexicans were shit, I would get arrested. Yet Christians can stand around in their Churches and belittle the beliefs of others, simply because the people who founded this country were Christian. ...They were also white. And isn't it more wrong to verbally assault someone for their beliefs than for their heritage? It's "Oh, Buddha was a fatty and you're going to hell" as compared to "I dislike you because your people have social standards that most of the rest of the world would imprison a person for."

Am I making sense to you guys? I'm saying that it's one thing to assault a person's heritage, but quite another to assault their beliefs. Yes, it is all marginalization, but one has some degree of rationale behind it (unless you're a hateful inbred).

And I was soooo not serious about starting a holocaust. I'm just making a point in the best way that I can at the moment, and would ask that the moderators not freak out over it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Vagrant, I would appreciate your normal in-depth critique.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) Do I get summoned up by name now?

Eh, I've dealt with these people all my life. When I was younger I would get angry and argue with them... now I just smile and nod, and say pleasantly, "Is that so?" as though fascinated. This approach tends to drive them all off. By refusing to acknowledge or engage in the conflict, I win by default. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/yes2.gif)

Interesting thing to know, apparently - and now, I read this on Cracked.com but they did have sources - when it comes to argument and debate, our brains are not actually wired to be right, or to accept a 'more right' approach, even based on facts and evidence! Our brains are wired to win, because debate is a conflict in which, to the brain, the victor proves their dominance. Compound that with the righteous zeal of the true believer, and wars are fought over who gets to be 'right'. It takes quite a bit of rewiring to be the kind of person who can look at the evidence in any debate and actually accept their perspective is flawed on that basis and adjust their views accordingly.

So what to do about them? Nothing, and nothing really can be done - they'll always exist, and in a way it's because of the type of attitude that we progress. If no one ever said "No, you're wrong" then whatever is accepted to be right will just stay that way forever.

Cogs in the machine, all of them are ultimately necessary remember, or the cosmic clock breaks down and God cannot tell what time it is supposed to be.

peace

Thank you again! I knew you'd have something interesting to say. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

That is very interesting. Now that I think about it, the only people I know in real life who actually will incorporate superior logic into their own without taking a hit to their pride are my cousin and myself, and I learned from my cousin.

And yes, you are a summon. You cost 35 mp. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wandwizard.gif)

I have become use to constant dissing on my whole system of beliefs and practices for years and i am only 18. I have dealt with it from family to class mates whenever i was in school i used to become so angry and frustrated. But then i realized that them telling me i was going to hell because of the things i believed or practiced i simply laughed in there face or depending on the person i would ask them why i was and to explain justify why i would go to hell int there beliefs. I would sit listen to what they had to say but usually when you ask someone this they are stunned they don't expect you to engage in conversation like this. Then whenever it is my turn to speak i would tell them things about there own religion they did not know or that god said he created us in his own image and that we all have divinity in us in some shape or form for example. All depending on what the person said i would try to come up with the most intelligent answer i could give them and explain to them certain things and a lot of the times by the end of the conversation it went from your going to hell to them sitting and asking me questions on many different subjects they themselves where condemning.

I like that. I've managed to do that to a few people, but mostly just my friends and my sister. I explained my beliefs on the correlation of the Sumerian Mythology to that of modern mainstream religion and some pagan religions and she actually took a good interest in what I had to say about my belief that a person was meant to take control of the power we call magick, regardless of the religious context you practice it under.

I'm actually writing a book on what I believe, where my beliefs come from, and my theories on the evolution of theology over the past maybe 12,000 years. But that's a post for later.

I simply, calmly, and evenly tell the folks who tell me that I'm "going to hell" that I don't follow their belief system.

At that point, they usually proclaim "It's true whether you believe it or not!" - insisting that what they're saying has nothing at all to do with beliefs or believing. Then I point out that if what they are saying is indeed true, if beliefs and believing have nothing at all to do with it, then there's no need for me to believe anything they're saying. There's no need for me to "believe in God" or "believe in Jesus" or believe that any of their teachings about how to get to heaven and how not to go to hell, etc...

That usually puts them in a conundrum.

While they are in that conundrum, I very concisely explain that a belief is an idea that does not match my experience - and that believing therefore is the process of living as if a belief is true. Living as if a belief is true is trusting that such beliefs are true - and trusting that such beliefs are true also can be called "having faith" in beliefs.

That compounds their conundrum, because "faith", "having faith", "believing", and "beliefs" are the bread and butter of their entire perspective. They're stuck now, because if they insist that believing doesn't have anything to do with outcomes, then they invalidate their motivation and reason for believing, having faith, etc...

Then I contrast this with knowing and knowledge, which I explain are based upon experience.
And I toss in the example: I don't believe that gravity exists ... I know that gravity exists because I experience gravity functioning.


At this point, they start doing a series of dodges and back-peddling, or they tenaciously hold onto their affirmation that "It's true whether you believe it or not!", and I simply, calmly, and evenly ask them where I can get the experience of hell so that I can be sure they're not just making shit up and otherwise lying to me (in the deceitful and despicable attempt to control how I live my life) - without quoting me doctrines from their belief system, since it has nothing to do with beliefs or believing.


This is where watching their cognitive dissonance unfold becomes truly interesting.

Yeah it seems to help whenever ya just try to sit down and explain it. And that is really cool i would be much interested in reading it onc you have a rough copy finished.

I'm not sure if you think this is a flaw with Christianity, Islam, or Judaism specifically or just with specific people who have poorly discussed these topics with you. Christians believe that people are going to hell if they do not accept the validity of Jesus and ask forgiveness. So the reason to believe is so you can be saved from hell. It doesn't matter, from a Christian perspective, if you believe in hell the same way it doesn't matter if you believe a downed, live power line can kill you. However if you believe it can be dangerous then you can avoid it. It's not a conundrum it's just poor wording/logic.



Empiricism (or "experience") can be argued as well as faith. But it's pretty hard to get anywhere (except "I exist" lol) with pure reason.



Actually no one can prove gravity exists, it just can be more apparent than, say, Christian, Jewish, or Muslim beliefs. Of course it is pretty ridiculous to try and say that gravity doesn't exist, but the point is that people of religious conviction are not simply blundering fools who cannot grasp the basics of rationality. Religious texts apply to all people. It is not usual to find a Christian who is able to argue with non-believers reasonably, but it is also unusual to find a non-believer who can argue well either. I think it's just fair to say that people all around are pretty ignorant.

If we were having this conversation it would not have gone the same direction your one here does, but if it did I would ask you how you can argue that it is "deceitful and despicable" for me or someone else to try to control your life. What are these principals you are so sure of? Clearly no one can prove their faith to your standard of empiricism and yet you claim that attempting to knowingly lie to you, in an effort to control you, is despicable. Why would that be despicable?

You’ve just said it’s about what Christians believe is going to happen to me (regarding hell).
It’s their belief – which is part of their belief system.


What they believe, according to their belief system, does not necessarily have anything to do with what in fact does happen with, or will happen to, me.


The power line example is a false analogy – because, regardless of anyone's beliefs about power lines, I can go examine how power lines work, do various experiments with electricity, observe what has happened to others who have messed around with power lines and been electrocuted, etc… yet I cannot do the same with regard to their beliefs about hell.

And it is indeed a conundrum because the entire situation involves their beliefs (including the accuracy, relevancy, and importance of believing) in relation to what’s supposedly going to happen regardless of beliefs!




No, they don’t.
Belief systems taught by respective religious texts only apply to those who believe them.

Regardless of how much the assertion is made that their beliefs apply to me, their belief systems don’t apply to me unless they are accurate for me and my experience.

And I alone determine such accuracy in relation to my experience – not them.




If they insist that something based upon their belief system is going to happen to me, and want me to change how I live my life according to their belief system – when I cannot verify the accuracy of their beliefs about heaven and hell with my ongoing experiences – then as far as I’m concerned they are attempting to deceive me, and are despicably trying to control my life (to dictate how I should live my life) according to their beliefs.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 1 2011, 12:14 PM

It's an unfortunate natural consequence of religious belief that in order to engage it the followers of a particular religion have to assert to themselves, at least, that it is indeed the truth. If this assertion is made and accepted then the natural consequence is that it must be true for everyone - if it isn't, then it isn't valid. So if you're a christian, for example, you must believe that all non-christians will go to hell. If you don't, then you admit that there's no point in being christian. This is true of all religions, and it's one of the main difficulties with conflicting religious beliefs.

What concerns me most about religious belief is that so often the constituents are told, essentially, that it's all a matter of "God's word" and faith. Experience is not a part of it, with very few exceptions. Those exceptions tend to be more about spiritual living than about moral compasses and religion.

Being that I live in the bible belt, I encounter the questing christian a lot in various forms - jehovah's witnesses and mormons (I know, not 'proper' christianity) for instance, show up on my doorstep with fair regularity. It's usually enough to let them know that I am aware of the good news. On the rare occasions that these proselytizers feel the need to insist that I may not know the good news, I've historically been courteous enough to engage them as it's obvious they want a religious debate of some sort. When it's civil, I enjoy a good debate.

The main question that arises is this - "What experience of God have you had?" Usually it's stories about how they turned their life around. I cite the times when I did this, without religion. Then it's stories about people who were healed in some way. I cite my stories, often a very recent one as this is not an uncommon experience for me, again, without religion. Then we get into how it's obvious God is calling me to whichever religion they are offering and that this is clearly why they were called to knock on my door - despite that they knock on every door.

So I begin to talk about my experience of divinity.

One of the benefits of seeking contact with Divinity, is that it is constantly available and open to contact. I have met two people who described an experience of being 'filled with the spirit'; only two, and they are not at all mainstream christians, more akin to quakers. Absent any religious affiliation, I have experienced 'God' - I say, Spirit, personally, or the Divine, but it's the same thing. In all the times I have had this conversation with religious individuals they simply deny my experience. It's either, "Satan can give you an experience like that", or it's "Man isn't worthy of that experience" attitude.

This takes it a step beyond just insisting one's beliefs are more true than another persons - this is willfully denying my spiritual experience on the grounds that because I do not subscribe to 'your' religion, I therefore cannot have had a true experience of Spirit.

The fact of the matter is, there is a logical fallacy embedded in all "One True Religions" that is this - if there are more than one way to God, if it is possible to commune with God outside of that particular kind of religion, then that religion is invalid at least in part. The two things are mutually exclusive. If Christ is the only path to salvation, for instance, or as the Jehovah's witnesses believe, one cannot even truly experience God unless one is following their religious path, then no person who is not committed to said religion can possibly have a direct experience of God.

I don't even care to discuss the idea of reason and religion, because my experiences are unreasoned themselves - but they are experiences, not just beliefs, not faith, but actual experiences and events that have convinced me beyond a shadow of doubt that there is a divine power, a creator force, which is conscious of our existence even if that consciousness is so far and above our own that we cannot recognize the extent of it's true nature. Further, this consciousness is without any doubt on my part, benevolent entirely. In recognizing that ultimately all of creation must return to that primal source, that the Spirit of Life is invincible and immortal, the relative importance of suffering becomes a practical matter rather than a conundrum of "If god is good why is there evil?" The answer becomes not a religious conundrum but an obvious and simple matter: mortal existence is transient, no amount of suffering can truly harm your immortal spirit.

My experience is direct, but doesn't invalidate anyone else's experience. We're given to know through these experiences whatever it is that we're given to know, and it isn't the whole picture because we're not complex enough for the whole picture. Or, we're not simple enough whichever way you care to see it.

So, when it comes to conflicting belief systems, and the confrontation of "My beliefs are right, and yours are wrong" what can you say? I've had this discussion face to face a hundred times, and not once has anyone ever 'seen the light' or realized what they were doing and why it was so ridiculous. Not one religious person has ever accepted that I have experienced the Divine on my own and am perfectly happy with my spiritual understanding and it's current growth. Ever. And those that have said "Well that really is wonderful" have come right back to, "But you still can't have salvation without Christ/Allah/Jehovah/Mithra/etc." So, the conversation is not worth having, and I have, over the past couple of years, just turned everyone politely away when it comes up. The action-of-non-action is in my opinion the only productive approach because true religious belief cannot be reasoned with, cannot be corrected, cannot be made to 'see the light', cannot be understood rationally, and cannot ever be convinced that your spiritual path is enough. You cannot ever offer enough evidence, you will never change the mind of the true believer - there is literally no constructive point to having the conversation.

peace

You're right.
For the overwhelming majority of the time, nothing can be said beyond, "I disagree", or "I don't use your belief system", etc...

Convincing, cajoling, coaxing, or otherwise attempting to persuade another to change their beliefs is almost completely futile.

I say, "almost" and not "totally" - because there are ultra rare situations where such conversations can be had in which a someone might truly consider making such a change.
Yet, for the most part, such situations remain just that - ultra rare.

So when someone proclaims to me, "You're wrong!" and/or goes on to insist "If you keep doing X then you're going to hell!" etc... from the position/perspective of their belief system (of which I am not a user) - I basically inform them that I'm right for me and keep right on truckin'. Sure, I might also go further in the convo (as outlined in my first post) with the approach I explained there.

But, in the end, whatever they say doesn't phase me for one moment.
And I continue progressing along my path according to my experience.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 1 2011, 10:38 AM

That kind of person is ultra rare because frankly we all want to know that we've basically got our bases covered according to some formula. Got shelter, check; Got job to pay for shelter and food, check; Got religion so Jesus will keep me safe when I die, check. Having a set of standards and activities that simply ensure that you go to heaven means you have one less thing to worry about at the end of the day (or days). We like comfortable little boxes where someone can just tell us what to do so that everything goes smoothly, and the vast majority of humans are this way. Structure and Routine, Formula and Surety are the basis for sound and sane living. For the slim minority this is not so. One is not better than the other - proselytizers of any religion are essentially saying, in an archetypal way, "Wouldn't you sleep easier knowing you were spiritually covered?" And are confused when the answer is apparently "No." But that's just because that's where they are, and where they want to be, and it's good enough for them.

Personally, it was never good enough for me. I never understood why, if he was so all knowing, all powerful, etc., why God needed something like the Bible to let us know what he wanted. Why not inform us personally? Free will means choosing to believe in him... God's voice did not boom out of the sky one day telling me he was there and watching me. I wanted to know God, the bible wasn't cutting it and Jesus wasn't, apparently, going to patch me through, so I tossed religion all together and started from scratch with, "If you're there, and I sure hope you are, please just let me know." I had to get over the fear of what that would mean, and let go of the idea that I would be punished for going over Jesus' head in the matter (since no one goes to the Father except through him), and when finally those deep childhood beliefs cracked just a little bit, Spirit moved right in and shattered the whole thing. I have had literally no fear since then, or should I say, I know now the difference between the fear my brain creates and what I really feel, but I have no fear of death or suffering.

Some people experience God through religion. But it isn't the religion that is responsible, it is the heart of the person that enables this experience to come to pass. I think the role of religion can be to guide an individual in the way of preparing themselves for it, but that is not the official purpose of religion and it is not taken into account commonly as a purpose. The purpose of Christianity, for instance, is to save you from Hell, as Tomber said. To me that would be a terribly fearful way to live at this point, and I would perhaps even resent my God for offering me such a choice. As it is, I believe Spirit requires nothing from us at all. Not worship, or even acknowledgement. To require it means it is not really free will at all. Instead, it is entirely a matter of choice and at least for me, there has been something to be gained from it. And that is why so many religious individuals are so unhappy despite the sure knowledge of their spiritual safety - because they didn't really have a choice, God put a gun to their head.

peace

The Christian God is supposed to be all powerful, without flaw, perfect... and so on. So a very good question would be, "why can't God just tell me what the deal is here?" I think the answer has to do with people not being able to understand things. All of us have dealt with people who appear to be stupid beyond belief and cannot defend what they think or even explain why they think what they do think, which is the point of this thread. I don't think that being able to understand our own choices or the choices of others is similar to a lightswitch- something which is either turned off or on. It seems to me that people have a range of understanding, an understanding which can grow. For example, no matter how amazing our ability to speak is, I still think we would all run into people who are simply too ignorant to grasp our beliefs.

I think the same has to do with God and us. He is like a super intelligent, aware being who has created some creatures that are sort of like Him- only not fully developed. Experience speaks to people in a way words cannot. I have read many times and believe that magic can only be learned through practice. As with most things, it has to be learned by practicing and experiencing it. It seems to me that God wants people understand reality and the things in it; including ourselves, Him, and other creatures, through the most intimate way possible: first hand experience.

Up to this point I have wrote about God not talking to people, but that's not entirely true. Even if people's conscience is really nothing more than a chunk of brain cells- something I'm not prepared to believe- then there is still the point that essentially the entire Old Testament (and nearly every other major religion) is founded on mystical visions directly from God Himself. Now I think people at a magic based forum are more likely to agree that visions are plausible and authentic means of communication, or else we have to throw quite a bit of other magic oriented visions out the window as well, including our own. The Old Testament also writes about God talking directly to Moses, and Jesus clearly talks to people, who talk to us.

I see the point of wanting God to step down from the pearly gates and give each one of us 7 Billion (plus prior populations) a good long chat. God does after all have all of time right? But there are some problems with that too. One of the biggest is that God would probably overwhelm our ability to choose something besides Him, like C.S. Lewis mentions in Mere Christianity. Choosing Him would not be a choice. Instead God seems to use indirect methods of communication. I do not believe it is an issue of being able to communicate with us that has caused God to do so in the way that He has, instead I see it as a specific choice with specific implications. Those implications are a desire to see people achieve and pursue Him instead of relying on being spoonfed ambrosia like divine aristocracy for eternity.

In a way, that's precisely the role I feel religion is best suited to play in human affairs, and the difference between the 'common' man and the 'uncommon' man. To me, religion is a sort of place holder. It's there, and most people are involved in some way, so on some level everyone is aware that there is a conception of 'god' in part because religion exists. Whether we would suspect inherently that this is so were there not such a thing as religion, is debatable. I would like to say that the awareness of a higher power is intrinsic even as a base instinct, but I have met people who claim to have absolutely know belief, desire, or hope of a higher power. So perhaps it is not so, or perhaps there have always been people who simply lack that instinct.

But in that light, it doesn't matter what religion your pursue, and that is where you encounter the wall in religious differences. Spirit has revealed itself to every culture on earth. Every culture has a myth of God's descent into the world of some kind, every culture has a spiritual current. It may be that different messages were delivered to different cultures because of different roles and purposes they were intended to play out in human history. It could also be that the inherent belief in a higher power is simply present everywhere and so unique explanations and traditions built up around that rather than Spirit ever actually contacting anyone in the ways that are written in the ancient tracts. I do believe in mystical experiences, obviously, so I'm willing to accept that Spirit revealed itself to people in the past, and I believe it does so in the present as well.

But the thread here is basically addressing the kind of religious zeal that convinces one person that their religion is the right one, or that their beliefs are the correct beliefs, and that all others are incorrect. It the assault on the beliefs of others on that basis. If the primacy of each major religion was clipped out, and everyone understood that there are many valid paths to Spirit, then many religions would simply collapse because they are founded on their own primacy. The competitive nature of the western world is present in western religion. The big three - and Ba'hai claims to be the next iteration in the judeo-christian line, so you could say the big Four - all claim primacy, that you have to be part of their religion or your beliefs are incorrect. There is simply no way to justify this without resorting the circular reasoning inherent in these religious traditions. And in order to belief in that reasoning, one has to accept that all other belief systems are incorrect and invalid. If you, Tomber, believe as a christian believes, that only Christ can save you from hell, then it follows that as a christian you also believe that unless I accept Christ as my personal savior, I will go to hell when I die. You can claim to have a looser definition, and to interpret the bible less literally - plenty of christians believe in 'christ consciousness' and that Jesus of Nazereth was not a real person but an ideal - but at some point the line has to be drawn or a religion becomes so obtuse and abstract that it's more of a hobby than a religion.

And the point here is that there is no way to justify this claim of primacy, so there is no way to claim that another person's beliefs are wrong on that basis. The more intelligent christians I have had the pleasure of debating this with cite historical 'facts' and discoveries that are intended to validate that Jesus was a real person, but even then they bow to a christian interpretation of those 'facts' rather than looking at them objectively (history supports, so far, that Jesus was never an actual physical person at all, from an objective point of view, but a spiritual myth just as all the other resurrected saviors throughout human history were myths.) If internal and circular validity - my book says this is true, so it is, and therefore my book is correct in all aspects - are all the grounds one can claim to invalidate the beliefs of others, why would a reasoning person even make the argument in the first place? Why would any individual with at least reasonably sound intellect assault the beliefs of another person when there is zero evidence that their own religion is in fact correct?

I'm not claiming, as I said before, that christian belief will not lead one to God, I think any religion can do this - again, that is about the human heart. But, choosing to be christian in the full knowledge that it is because one desires a religion in their life and is most comfortable with christianity or any other religion, is a far cry from choosing christianity because it is the only way to be saved from hell and believing that all others who didn't make that choice chose incorrectly.

peace

Fear.

Many believers make the argument, and assault non-believers when zero evidence exists, because they are terrified that if they do not obediently believe that their way is the One True Way - if they do not do exactly as they have been told: if they do not live their lives exactly as the those who taught them their beliefs / belief system told them to live - then they will suffer the consequences that they were told they would suffer for being non-believers.

They are viscerally horrified that their disobedience and disbelief will result with them "going to hell".

Such fear overrides reason and intellect.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Dec 4 2011, 07:56 AM

"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure,[4] most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence.[5]"

This is from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus". The evidence that Jesus existed is one of the strongest points in His favor. An intelligent Christian would have much more trouble arguing the "supernatural" part of Jesus' existence than just his existence.

Anyway I enjoyed Bym's comments on something similar in an old thread:




And then...



Magic can be worked with in a Christian way. It's not that I have a looser definition of the Bible, it's just that my interpretation is different than some people. I don't know how hell will work for people who are not Christian, I have an idea but that's about all. I do know that I can't stop trying to work with what I believe to be the most accurate interpretation of the Bible because I genuinely believe it and cannot choose to just turn my back on what I realize. I think that God comes not through the Bible but through revelation, but I think that revelation often comes through the Bible.

I enjoy the different perspectives. I wish there were more people who thought like I did to support me here lol!

Hey - if you find that magick works for you according to a Christian way, then by all means - continue working magick like that!

Seems to me that the tenor of this thread has been whether or not anyone else's system necessarily applies to those who don't use the same system.

The other side of that... "http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_historical_existence_of_Jesus_Christ"...

Even the earliest records of Jesus are by a man who admittedly was not an eye witness - and the supposed eye-witness accounts arise well after Jesus' proposed crucifixion and resurrection. So far, there is corroborating evidence of Jesus as a myth, but no corroborating evidence of a historical figure. To me, it doesn't matter - if Jesus was a historical figure, maybe other savior figures who are historically corroborated were also genuine as well, supernatural deeds or not. However, not being myself christian it means as much as if Marduk was an actual pre-babylonian king who waged war with some other person called Tiamat. Whether men or myths, the impact is the same.

The difference is that I know the stories of the egyptian Gods to be myths, and draw allegorical wisdom from them anyway. A different kind of wisdom is found in myth than is found in history. For most christians - scholars and laymen alike - it isn't enough to have a very wise myth, it must be historically accurate, otherwise it is often felt that the religion would be invalidated. I disagree, personally.



As for names of power, religious faith is not enough to empower their use, and this is spoken of in various hebrew texts on kabalah and the meanings of the names and letters themselves. I utilize the names based on my understanding and faith in the archetypal forces represented by the letters, for instance. To you, perhaps, the name YHVH is one of the names of God, and the the Hebrews as well - to me, that is the formula for God's descent and interaction with a material creation, the ineffable and eternal becoming temporal while still retaining it's divine being. Faith in an operative divinity is all that comes into play here, and the acknowledgement that wise men may receive revelation from God, while the ignorant build temples around those words because it is all they know of God.

It is good that you recognize that God comes to us through Revelation. Personally I believe that for the right heart, revelation may come through a poem, the sight of a newborn baby, the blossoming of a lotus, the moment of calm acceptance, or the face of a stranger. I would never suggest anyone stop believing whatever they believe - but that we all must look our beliefs straight in the face, as it were, and recognize precisely what we believe in and why. Not as a matter of justifying them to anyone, but as a matter of knowing ourselves, and knowing what is good enough for us to believe in. Blind acceptance of a thing as true can be a matter of faith or ignorance, faith is more than just acceptance of what we cannot know for certain.

peace

^ Sounds like a solid position. We disagree over particulars but that's all I suppose. (even if those are important particulars ha).

Many fascinating ideas articulated here and it's really a conversation that can't be had in full through message boards. One idea that really isn't touched on is the difference between a person of belief and a person of want. For instance, in the bible belt there are certainly people of belief, but there are also a great many people of want. What I mean by this example is thus: religion is the perfect vehicle for which a bigot might look themselves into the mirror and say you're a good person. There's a flip-side to this of course when one is able to seed that religion is a gateway to the divine; christianity is a traditional path that has been given a poor rap one way or the other due to it's mainstream popularity.

Now when it gets complex, the majority of religious people are unable to question. Furthermore, many religious people don't actually know how to read. When I say this mean they can't be critical of what they read, this point is touched upon by Vagrant Dreamer. All those people who are unable to utilize their critical nature then become caught in a cyclic explanation that has so many rises and falls that it becomes simple to stay within a plain. If we're talking about religion, it was always meant to elevate, whether it does or not is largely dependent on the person.

As for people who are constantly dismissive of all other arguments, one can look at one main idea. Does the person mock/ridicule/dismiss off-handedly the ideas presented? If so, the person telling you are wrong is just another in the long line of people who have learned enough to do harm, the harm being done mostly to themselves of course. I just want to make the statement that belief shouldn't be confused with 'the blind following the blind' which can very much become a problem within religion even when there's a leader of great voice and steadfastness.

I agree. And I don't think it helps that most of these old texts are in languages no one understands. And as if language wasn't a big enough barrier to understanding written material, there's social differences. If one generation can't even understand the next, I bet adding 100 more generations doesn't help.