Faith, Delusions, and Knowledge...

[_huckelberry]

Scottie, I do not think you are the first person to state or imply that the approach to relioun is normally I am right and you are not if you disagree. You have gone far enough to say that believing onself part of the only true religion is humanly universal.

I hardly see this and wonder if you have just let your expectations be overly conditioned by LDS view of one true church.

I propose a counter view. This is an odd and minority approach to religous belief. Most people have view a lot of flexibility with its attendance implication, we do not know a lot of stuff, to far closer to the usual human view.

I can glance over a quick review of past attitudes. The Greeks and Romans hardly viewed their stories as exclusive but mixed and matched at will. I think I have seen the observation that that was normal viewpoint of the time. Other people like Egyptians may attatch to their own traditions but can absorb as desired with no fear of losing any one true something.

I could consider native american attitudes. From what I have read they were curious about other views and again absorbed or dropped ideas as they found use for them. A one true religion was quite alien to them. When Christians proposed that the broad bag of Chiristianity Washington one one true story they often were a bit skeptical of that possiblitiy.

Consider Hindu. They have been quite explicit there is no one true way but all paths tend towards one goal in the end. Hindus have maintained vast variety with entheusiasm. Consider Buddism. I am unaware of any strong tendancey to think of one true view their either.

I suspect it is hard to find one true church ideas outside of the Biblical traditions. (That would include the offshoot Islam)
Now this family of views has become widespread so could appear normal when in comparision to most people most times the Biblical view is odd.

Now in the family of Biblical views there is a good bit of variety in how people see one true version.
there are more poeple than myself who think there is one true version of religons awareness. iIt exists only in the mind of God. In the mind of humans there is variety.

[_Maxrep]

This is honestly something I can not fathom.

How intelligent people can look at the entire human race and see how this phenomenon exists in every religious movement. How we are right, and everyone else is wrong. And if you try and tell them they are wrong, well, that just can't be.

How incredibly arrogant do you have to be to realize that almost every human does this, but for whatever reason, YOU are the one that is right because your version of the spirit told you so. Even though this exact same argument is used by billions of others about their beliefs.

This was one thing that always disturbed me as a Mormon. Greeks honestly believed in Zeus. Sure, we laugh at how silly this is now, but why is our belief in Elohim any more ridiculous?

What is even more telling to me is that for most educated church members, this is the religion of our birth. We didn't think or pray our way into Mormonism, we were born into it. We soothe our conscious by stating that at some point, everyone born into the church must experience their own personal conversion with its corresponding spiritual witness to have a testimony. The reality, in my view, is that we find ourselves completely immersed in the LDS culture, and have developed a testimony of the community that encompasses our immediate family, relatives, and our friends. Yes, we know the doctrine, but I think that it is the comfort that comes from the human relationships within the church, that we are emotionally tied to. These very same personal ties also create expectations that we feel a strong obligation to live up to. When a large part of your identity is the church culture, preservation of inherited beliefs takes on a monumental importance.

This becomes obvious when we examine our non member peers. Take a look at those folk you work with that draw a similar salary, have a similar education, and those whom you would consider your social peers, then try and get them to have the same spiritual "conversion" that life long members assert they have each experienced. It ain't gonna happen - and you know it. I remember someone stating that, "testimonies are genetic - we inherit them from our parents".

[_Scottie]

Scottie, I do not think you are the first person to state or imply that the approach to relioun is normally I am right and you are not if you disagree. You have gone far enough to say that believing onself part of the only true religion is humanly universal.

I hardly see this and wonder if you have just let your expectations be overly conditioned by LDS view of one true church.

I propose a counter view. This is an odd and minority approach to religous belief. Most people have view a lot of flexibility with its attendance implication, we do not know a lot of stuff, to far closer to the usual human view.

I can glance over a quick review of past attitudes. The Greeks and Romans hardly viewed their stories as exclusive but mixed and matched at will. I think I have seen the observation that that was normal viewpoint of the time. Other people like Egyptians may attatch to their own traditions but can absorb as desired with no fear of losing any one true something.

I could consider native american attitudes. From what I have read they were curious about other views and again absorbed or dropped ideas as they found use for them. A one true religion was quite alien to them. When Christians proposed that the broad bag of Chiristianity Washington one one true story they often were a bit skeptical of that possiblitiy.

Consider Hindu. They have been quite explicit there is no one true way but all paths tend towards one goal in the end. Hindus have maintained vast variety with entheusiasm. Consider Buddism. I am unaware of any strong tendancey to think of one true view their either.

I suspect it is hard to find one true church ideas outside of the Biblical traditions. (That would include the offshoot Islam)
Now this family of views has become widespread so could appear normal when in comparision to most people most times the Biblical view is odd.

Now in the family of Biblical views there is a good bit of variety in how people see one true version.
there are more poeple than myself who think there is one true version of religons awareness. iIt exists only in the mind of God. In the mind of humans there is variety.

You raise some good points here, Huck. I agree with a lot of this.

[_Ten Bear]

I don't know BC, God hasn't done a very good job of making it clear for believers.

I think it's quite clear that it takes God to answer your questions about cconvincing.

I think it's quite clear that it takes convincing to answer your questions about God.

[_Some Schmo]

I came across this quote yesterday and thought it summed up my questions concerning faith...

"If our faith were invested in lies and delusions, how would we know?" - Gene Derig

How could anyone convince the FLDS they are mistaken?

How could anyone convince terrorists they are mistaken?

How could anyone convince a True Believer of any religion or cult they are mistaken?

It seems the very dynamics of faith do not allow the possibility for mistaken belief.

You must have faith, if you doubt you do not have faith which is a sin, so you must put your doubt and questions aside and have more faith. (sigh)

~dancer~

Yep. That's why my biggest criticism of religion has always been faith, and the idea that the more faith you have, the better (ie more righteous) you are. It's basically reveling in ignorance and stupidity.

[_Ten Bear]

Where I always use to get hung up is (and I'm sure this topic has been brought up here before) we are taught that you need to have faith. If you have "knowledge" of the truth, then where is the need for faith?

Ok.

Then you hear everyone get up to the pulpit and say "I know these things are true." So which is it? Do you know" Or do you have faith? When does your faith reach a point of knowledge?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ten Bear,

I don't think those who claim they "know", (things that are not true) actually know, they just really believe.

To some (true believers), they think they know... it may feel like they know but in my opinion, it is just really strong belief, hard wired to the point that it feels like reality.

The same phenomenon exists with all sorts of believers; flat earthers, Scientologists, FLDS, terrorists, devotees of Kim Jong II, etc. etc. etc.

Some Schmo...

I have often said, no one is an advocate of faith in an of itself. No one. Believers are advocates of faith in their particular belief system, deity, or religion.

;-)

~dancer~

[_Ten Bear]

Sometimes I even see it as a sub-concious level effort to convince themselves more than anything else. If I've miss-placed my keys, I might say something like, "I KNOW they were right here, now where could they be?" I really didn't know that, I was just trying to convince myself or maybe anyone else who is in ear-shock.

When I think about it, the use of the term "I know" is a rather bold assurtion. In reality, I beleive, that we "know" very few things in life and everything else is just our perception of truth and we just merely believe.

[_Scottie]

I don't think those who claim they "know", (things that are not true) actually know, they just really believe.

Been to MAD lately? I've argued with several TBM's over there who claim to absolutely KNOW that the church is true. I've tried to explain how they can not know, but rather that they believe. Nope. They KNOW.

[_solomarineris]

Seems like atheists are in need of a God to sort it all out. lol

Yea we do, like we need a hole in our heads by Jeesus.