Maturity in Faith, Belief, Opinion

[Zzzptm]

Often, I see people that claim to have a belief in something, but then go on to undermine the ability of others to share in that belief because these people are too strident or over-the-top in trying to present their views. To them, things are so crystal clear: what could be wrong with someone that does not agree completely with their views? Are they ignorant? Or are they willful enemies?

By leaving out the ability of others to judge things differently, which I call spiritual immaturity, such people are prone to hardline views, are less able to forgive, are more likely to use contentious or confrontational language and, ultimately, commit acts of violence. They will do these things, all the while believing that they are in the right and are justified in their actions.

Spiritual maturity, on the other hand, allows one to accept that other people will walk other paths. Indeed, that each person walks a unique path, some in a similar direction, others not. A spiritually mature person would hope to influence the path of another, but will also recognize when such influence is either unwanted or won't be understood, or both - and then, in such cases, to refrain from attempting such influence.

Sadly, the spiritually immature can see this maturity as a threat to their own narrow views and lash out against it as heresy, putting it on the same level as their paranoid reactions towards supposed enemies outside their faith. To the immature, the mature can seem as traitors from within because they will not join in crusades or other acts of forcible conversion. Rather, they live and let live and somehow seem to allow evil to flourish.

In truth, it is the mature person that is not allowing evil to color his or her actions and pervert his or her beliefs.

I've been the immature person before, thinking that standing my ground in a heated argument lasting for hours was a sort of victory. In truth, it was all wasted words, as I did not convince the others of my views and served only to make them more ready to disagree with anything I proffered in the future. I've been that way about my religion, my politics, my views on music, my tastes in arts, and so many other subjective areas. It's taken me many years to develop the ability to let others have the last word, even when it contradicts what I've been trying to say. It's a sort of long game for me, because if I'm known to let others have a fair say, then I'm more likely to be listened to in the future by those I disagree with. And, maybe in that future day, my arguments might find their way into the hearts and minds of those others that disagree with me today.

Perhaps this is why I'm drawn to teachings of live and let live that are common among Daoist philosophers, Zhuangzi in particular. Perhaps this is why I see value in the Zen koans. While I myself am neither Daoist or Buddhist, I find a sympathetic maturity in their sentiments, in the way they serve to remove masks and illusions that so often bedevil our views, and then allow us to better penetrate the darkness between our souls and enlightenment.

[Billy Underdog]

The way i see it all religion and spirituality is the same, and hence have to come from the same source. I think everybody belive in something, something i would call devine, and i'd guess everybody have their own way of explaining it.. Not going to go into what that is to me, because that'll take several pages of posts. Short version is it's about our inner self, or soul, how we relate to nature and each others. The fact that we're even here and nature works as perfect as it does (over huge amounts of time).
But one good thing Bahá'í teach is that at different times and in different cultures, people will receive from the devine what they need.
Worship of ancestors are probably one of the oldest, because family and survival was hand in hand. Worship of the sun ofcourse came with the agricultural revolution, one of the biggest gifts of all time in some ways, and became the symbol of life. Living with nature, it was natural to give different aspects of nature their own part of the life, so we got nature spirits. Which would evolve into pantheons of personifications. This also coinsiding with living people becoming mythologised. With civilization growing into cities, esp in the Mesopitamian and Persian areas, some of these "gods" became patreons of the city or nation (wich was basically a loose connection between cities) and with time grew in importance until it became the most important god, which become the start of monotheism. First in Zoroastrianism and in early Egyptian mythology (for a short while), later what we know as the Abrahamic religions.

Every spiritual or religious person who's deemed as a prophet or otherwize holy person by a group of people mostly convey some of this knowledge.
The problem starts when this become organized around and after one such person. It was also a political way of controling society, and mixing the two is not a good thing. Put greed and agendas into the picture, and the whole original knowledge gets twisted, with one person is going to tell another one what the devine knowledge is, often illiterate people and not with much access to the sources, because they forget to listen to their inner relationship with the devine.
One of the biggest gifts or knowledges we've got is the art of printing, science and the enlightenment era.
Now everyone can learn about the devine themselves, figure out how they can connect with it, and see it's all trying to tell us the same about our relationship with our soul, nature and each others.

The reason some people who call themselves religious act the way you describe above is because they're still too hung up in those twisted interpretations that've been made since the beginning of conveying the knowledge. Miseducated and out of touch with their soul and their own relationship with the devine.

[Zzzptm]

So true... Christianity inside the Roman Empire emphasized the need to support the Emperor and threatened hell to those who did not pay taxes on time. Outside the Roman Empire, Christianity focused on more joyous messages and hardly ever mentioned hell, and only as a warning, not as a threat. Similar things have befallen other religions when they are tied to symbols and institutions of state power.

[Billy Underdog]

So true... Christianity inside the Roman Empire emphasized the need to support the Emperor and threatened hell to those who did not pay taxes

Exactly. Early religion doesn't even have the concept of heaven and hell, just a realm of the dead, and when Jesus spoke about it it was about the way you live your life. In your life. Those two were only tied together by those who wrote the latest parts of the bible and edited the whole thing, leaving alot out. And those who kept on trying to interpit it, and twisting it. And, yes, that's not the only example. I really think most organized religion is anti-religious.
I don't believe in a "life after death", btw, and nothing could sound more Heavenly than "nothing".
Heaven is a place on earth...

[Zzzptm]

Myself, I do see a life both before and after mortality, or, rather, I see mortality as a brief interruption in an otherwise immortal state. Why? It is so that we can learn and be tested to see what we will do when we are not in the presence of God. The learning and testing is not just for God to see, but for us to see for ourselves, that when we are restored to immortality, we judge ourselves with complete knowledge of how we helped or harmed others in our mortal existence; of how we faced or retreated from hardships; of how we loved or of how we hated.

[Billy Underdog]

Well, you know energy never disappears, it always transform into other forms. That also include our energy, which is connected with the collective energy that is part of the devine (that sounded alot more new-age than the huge idea i'm trying to say in just short terms).
So in those terms you might say there's some life after death, but that's nothing to do with our consciousness or soul.
And i don't think the devine is conscious. It just is. It is actually out of our reach to really understand what it is, like many religions say.
But you can feel it.

[Zzzptm]

I hear ya, man.

This is one of those conversations I wish was happening around a fireplace, underneath a canopy of stars by a forest lake.

So I'll imagine that, and now it is.

[ /me stirs the coals in the fire for a little more warmth ]

[Billy Underdog]

No doubt. Up in the mountains. Mountan tops are also central in many religions, for a reason.

[Zzzptm]

No doubt. Up in the mountains. Mountan tops are also central in many religions, for a reason.

You speak true, yes... on a mountain top...

[Vyn]

Maturity in faith is often tied with maturity -in general-. Being so arrogant that one thinks they can (or even should try to) impose their belief system on others is, well, arrogant.

And to then sit back and pass judgement on others as being somehow "less than" is sure to alienate the very people one is proselytizing to.

A couple of sentences fails miserably to convey my thoughts on the subject, but I had to begin somewhere! I will add that I feel there is a difference between religion, faith, belief, and knowledge. I keep those differences in mind when I discuss such things, because communication is hard enough among people who have spent years together. Much less folks reading those communications on the internet who come from a multitude of cultures, languages, and perspectives.

Being as specific as I can while not stepping into pedantry is one part of how I try to bridge those things.

[Billy Underdog]

In Norwegian we've got the same word for faith and belief, so you're lucky having that division, since, yes, there is a difference. And they're both parts of this larger thing the greeks called religio, which also contain the political side of it. When i'm talking about this in Norwegian, it's faith i'm talking about, which i believe () is the essence of all this. Knowledge is having your faith confirmed, amongst other things.

[Typhon]

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.

[Zzzptm]

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.

But then there's the case where  a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...

[Typhon]

But then there's the case where  a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...

The person would have to prove he had the experience and not imagined it.

[Zzzptm]

But then there's the case where  a person has a profound experience that confirms his belief, but others refuse to believe that such an experience happened, or was even possible. Then the irrationality is not on the part of the person claiming the profound experience...

The person would have to prove he had the experience and not imagined it.

But a person could offer proof and the one who challenges it offers a plausible explanation for at least the superficial aspects of the proof, then dismisses the experience without further consideration.

Or, the person has no physical proof, but relies upon fellow witnesses of the experience. The challenger then says this is either a mass delusion or conspiracy, then dismisses without further consideration.

Perhaps the explanations are correct and the person claiming the experience is either misled or attempting to commit fraud. But also perhaps the person claiming the experience is sincere.

Worst case is the sincere person's experience that is seized upon by both delusional people and fraudsters, thereby perverting the experience to serve their own ends.