Maturity in Faith, Belief, Opinion

[Sicko FanAtic]

One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized. 

For instance:  If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems.  But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.

Disclaimer:  Nothing personal against Catholics.  Just had to use someone to make my point.  But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.

Somebody's been watching Sam Harris debates!

I agree. The overriding stigma of challenging beliefs is unfair, because religion is forced on people constantly as it is woven into the fabric of society. Ridiculous beliefs, especially ones that are controlling our lives and our society, have to be challenged.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Vyn]

Proof is an interesting concept. What constitutes proof often varies from person to person and even from time to time. Both socially and individually.

A friend of mine who is a sociologist did his PhD on whether you could predict if a person would alter their behavior depending on the circumstance. That wasn't the actual thesis but boiled down to that. Anyway, his conclusion was that you can't. It earned him his PhD, but is that proof of anything?

I can write a mathematical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (and have, along with thousands of other people) in several different ways, all of them valid. But there are premises that have to be accepted as true before that proof can be considered valid. Euclid built that foundation, but once we move away from that things change. I can design a mathematical space where a squared plus b squared does not equal c squared.

Taking away the framework within which we, as human beings, make sense of the world around us, the Pythagorean Theorem falls apart. Does that make it less valid? Of course not. But it highlights the fact that it is valid with caveats .

It is a mathematical proof. When something is proven mathematically, it is PROVEN. But the process of proving something mathematically, along with theory testing via the scientific method, are human endeavors. They flow from human intelligence, a human perspective...human sensibilities.

Is there anything outside of that?

I think cats know...   

[Vyn]

Not on topic, but good to see you around Typhon! Fun fact, at home I have computer servers named Typhon and Echidna, and my firewall is named Cerberus.

[Zzzptm]

There's also the case where a person experiences something so incontrovertible in his judgment that he really doesn't care if he can't prove it to anyone else. The experience is his own, it's enough for him, and that's that. He does not need peers to justify his beliefs.

That being said, there is a real sadness I have for people who grow up in state-imposed or societally-imposed belief systems. They tend to be run not by wise people with a thirst for truth, but by busybodies who love enforcing rules. In such cases, belief is not an inwardly-directed expression of faith, but a mandatory, outwardly-directed expression of conformity. There will be exceptions, but by and large the belief is imposed. I've seen this not only in places where it is a religion that constitutes the belief system, but in China, where the cult of personality around Mao is the belief system. It is atheistic, but nevertheless has many elements in common with historic state churches.

In such, the religion is not truly a belief system, but a control system. The Byzantine Empire went so far as to define its tax cycles as being divine mandates, as they came in combinations and numbers that lined up with Biblical events. Such things were pure inventions of the state, but to challenge them became not just an act of rebellion, but an act of blasphemy. The state put a person's soul at risk if a person challenged the status quo. Same thing in China, but with things lining up with Mao's writings, not what's in some other book.

For myself, I made a conscious decision about my faith and belief and continue to make that decision each day in my life. I've had experiences that confirm to me that there is a God. Most are quite personal, so I wouldn't even begin to use them to justify a proof of God's existence. I know, and that is good enough for me. Someone else may not know and while I can perhaps offer ideas on how to come to such a knowledge as I have, if the other person isn't interested in that knowledge, we're all better off if I don't provide unwanted advice. I believe that a person who truly seeks truth will find it. A person who does not truly seek truth wouldn't know truth if he found it.

[Sicko FanAtic]

Proof is an interesting concept. What constitutes proof often varies from person to person and even from time to time. Both socially and individually.

A friend of mine who is a sociologist did his PhD on whether you could predict if a person would alter their behavior depending on the circumstance. That wasn't the actual thesis but boiled down to that. Anyway, his conclusion was that you can't. It earned him his PhD, but is that proof of anything?

I can write a mathematical proof of the Pythagorean Theorem (and have, along with thousands of other people) in several different ways, all of them valid. But there are premises that have to be accepted as true before that proof can be considered valid. Euclid built that foundation, but once we move away from that things change. I can design a mathematical space where a squared plus b squared does not equal c squared.

Taking away the framework within which we, as human beings, make sense of the world around us, the Pythagorean Theorem falls apart. Does that make it less valid? Of course not. But it highlights the fact that it is valid with caveats .

It is a mathematical proof. When something is proven mathematically, it is PROVEN. But the process of proving something mathematically, along with theory testing via the scientific method, are human endeavors. They flow from human intelligence, a human perspective...human sensibilities.

Is there anything outside of that?

I think cats know...

Nice insights, Vyn. Some may take this to mean that therefore all beliefs are equal. To quote Douglas Adams:

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

There are varying degrees of proof I say.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Zzzptm]

To quote Douglas Adams:

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

Sorry, couldn't resist. Back to the discussion, now...

[BOGBLAST]

In such, the religion is not truly a belief system, but a control system. The Byzantine Empire went so far as to define its tax cycles as being divine mandates, as they came in combinations and numbers that lined up with Biblical events. Such things were pure inventions of the state, but to challenge them became not just an act of rebellion, but an act of blasphemy. The state put a person's soul at risk if a person challenged the status quo. Same thing in China, but with things lining up with Mao's writings, not what's in some other book.

I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.

In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.

So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?

I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.

[Sicko FanAtic]

We're all trapped in the quicksand of verbal expression

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

[Billy Underdog]

One of the biggest problems I have with this subject is that when a nutty concept is believed by a large number of people, then the nutty concept becomes legitimized.

For instance:  If 1 guy believes that there is a spirit lurking in his breakfast cereal every morning, then he will be recognized as having mental problems.  But when thousands believe that the body of Christ is a cracker, well now they're just Catholics.

Disclaimer:  Nothing personal against Catholics.  Just had to use someone to make my point.  But, all religions participate in this type of mass lunacy in one form or another.

If you've come to the point when the body of christ is a cracker without understanding the original purpose to remember Jesus, you most likely have lost the way a long time ago. At this point i don't think we need to eat crackers to remember or "sanctify" him either.

And that a large number adhere to Scientology doesn't legitamize it.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

I agree in some way, but if not all opinions are not equal, that doesn't mean that "less than" opinions are invalid.

I call myself a Norse Christian, which ofcourse has to do with my culture and upbringing. Could just've easily called myself Muslim, Taoist or Shamanist, it's the sum of them all that matters anyway.

I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.

In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.

So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?

I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.

Once again i don't really believe in an afterlife as such, but to play that ball, as long as you follow what the divine is telling YOU what's right, that's the right thing to do. Noone have the authority to step between you and your realationship with it and tell you othervize. Get the confirmation if it feels right to you, but not just because they tell you to. I'm baptized, not confirmed (using Protestand terms now)...

There's many ways to the devine, and i don't deny some can go through organized religion. As long as one keep in mind to listen to the inner voice more than people with their own ideas. In that respect it can be easy to be led astray when it's organized.
I think searching for "it" on your own is much more effective. That requires some studying, ofcourse, to rule out what of the sources are likely to come from (atleast pretty close to) the original source, and those who've been manipulated and added by others.

We're all trapped in the quicksand of verbal expression

Very true. We use the same words, but i think we put significantly different meanings into them. You all keep describing persons we've been involved with "relegious" and "christian". Sometimes i actually find that offencive. To me they're quite the opposite, and i would much rather you'd use such terms about someone like me (and others detatched from the clearly political side of religion), so those terms can get some of their true meanings back.
An Islamist conducting a terrorist attack, that has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
Doesn't matter if they say it is. I can call myself a black lesbian 60yr old girl from Rio De Janeiro all i want. Doesn't make it true...

There's this question of proof. A devine experience is, as Dozy says a highly personal experience, and it's really impossible to prove anything about it. As for the divinity, hey, we're here. Things work. That's the proof...

Should be an unnecessary disclaimer, but; this is all ofcourse IMO.

[Zzzptm]

I'm Roman Catholic and believe much as "born again Christians" do. One of the first things I learned about them is that it is mandatory to donate 10% of your earnings to the church. Sure the Catholics pass the collection plate but are urged to give what they can.

In the Roman Catholic faith you are normally Baptized before your first birthday. In a discussion with a born again Christian I was told that if I was not re-baptized in Jesus Christ that I had no chance of going to heaven. I dismissed that as total rubbish. That's like telling someone in the LGBTQ community that they can't go to heaven because of they're sexual identity.

So am I being spiritually immature or is my born again friend? My spiritual beliefs have been instilled in me since childhood. So the way I was raised wholly contributed to my spiritual choice. Of course as I aged I could have made another choice but saw no need. Being born again is a choice that I have no problem with, but why do they try so hard to push their beliefs on others?

I mean no disrespect to any religion and await any criticisms or observations anyone may have.

Here's the test... do you believe what you believe because you just assumed it was the way to go, or do you believe because you went through an experience or process in which you sorted things out and emerged from that process with a deeper conviction in your beliefs. A Damascus Moment or a conversion process, as it were.

[Billy Underdog]

I don't think religious experiences need to be so profound. That's more an epiphany. You can have religious experiences in your everyday life. When you feel and know you're living the right way for yourself and those around you, and you can feel the presence of the devine, that's actually being in heaven. And the other way around, ofcourse.

It's so a part of daily life that when some people tend to make some experiences so much more fantastic than others, other people forget to pay attention to the "small things", to put it that way. The daily life, their inner voice.

[Zzzptm]

I don't think religious experiences need to be so profound. That's more an epiphany. You can have religious experiences in your everyday life. When you feel and know you're living the right way for yourself and those around you, and you can feel the presence of the devine, that's actually being in heaven. And the other way around, ofcourse.

It's so a part of daily life that when some people tend to make some experiences so much more fantastic than others, other people forget to pay attention to the "small things", to put it that way. The daily life, their inner voice.

I see what you're saying, but for me to be able to get to that everyday peace, I had to pass through some stormy tests of my own faith. Having had that conversion experience, it defined my belief from that point forward.

But you are right - not everyone needs what I needed. Some can have the conversion experience not through a storm, but through noticing the gentle rains that fall almost every day.

[Billy Underdog]

I see what you're saying, but for me to be able to get to that everyday peace, I had to pass through some stormy tests of my own faith. Having had that conversion experience, it defined my belief from that point forward.

But you are right - not everyone needs what I needed. Some can have the conversion experience not through a storm, but through noticing the gentle rains that fall almost every day.

Well, absolutely. I've had several "greater" experiences myself, but i still haven't found that daily peace. Atleast i haven't had it in a while. I think both are needed, though.

[Zzzptm]

As it goes in a koan, we can study all we want to make our preaching more persuasive, but if we do not meditate every day, our inner light goes out.

[Billy Underdog]

Meditate, listen to the inner self, feel the devine. Call it what one will...