A very simple question
Why do humans blame each others for having the "wrong faith or belief "?
Isn't the belief each one has a "tool" for them to find some form of truth?
Who says "my truth" is better for you?
What if "my faith and belief " is not what you seek?
Be whom you are, and seek truth where you see it arise for you
No. Belief isn't simply a tool to find some form of Truth, for most. It is for some, but for most beliefs are something in which they have invested their sense of self identities. And further than that, their beliefs is where they seek to find a sense of their own immortalities.
If you'll bear with a little heady explanation here, I'm going to quote from a contemporary philosopher whom I find a great deal of insight with. He speaks of the difference between faith and doubt, which I very much agree with, and which my personal experience affirms.
I've highlighted in bold below what I think will really help you to understand what you are seeing, and to contrast yourself with the 'true believer' you are asking questions about. I see you much more as the person of faith, who takes things more philosophically and less invested in being "right" in an effort to protect your immortality symbols, or to project your doubts upon others. I hope this helps:
Belief
Belief is the lowest form of religious involvement, and, in fact, it often seems to operate with no authentic religious connection whatsoever. The "true believer" - one who has no literal faith, let alone actual experience - embraces a more-or-less codified belief system that appears to act most basically as a fund of immortality symbols. This can be the mythic-exoteric religion (e.g., fundamentalist Protestantism, lay Shintoism, pop Hinduism, etc.), rational-scientism, Maoism, civil religion, and so on. What they all have in common, when thus made a matter of "true belief," is that an ideological nexus is wedded to one's qualifications for immortality.
I believe this generates a peculiar, secondary psychodynamic: since one's immortality prospects hang on the veracity of the ideological nexus, the nexus as a whole can be critically examined only with the greatest of difficulty. Thus, when the normal and unavoidable moments of uncertainty or disbelief occur (magic: is this dance really causing rain? mythic: was the world really created in six days? scientistic: what happened before the big bang? etc.), the questioning impulses are not long allowed to remain in the self-system (they are threats to one's immortality qualifications). As a result, the disbelieving impulse tends to be projected onto others and then attacked "out there" with an obsessive endurance.
....
On the more benign side, belief can serve as the appropriate conceptual expression and codification of a religious involvement of any higher degree (faith, experience, adaptation). Here, a belief system acts as a rational clarification of transrational truths, as well as the introductory, exoteric, preparatory "reading material" for initiates. When belief systems are thus linked to actual higher (authentic) religiousness, they can be called, not because of themselves but because of association, authentic belief systems.
Faith
Faith goes beyond belief but not as far as actual religious experience. The true believer can usually give you all the reasons he is "right", and if you genuinely question his reasons he tends to take it very personally (because you have, in fact, just questioned his qualifications for immortality). His belief system is a politics of durability. The person of faith, on the other hand, will usually have a series of beliefs, but the religious involvement of this person does not seem to be generated solely, or even predominantly by the beliefs. Frequently, in fact, the person cannot say why he is "right" (faith), and should you criticize what reasons he does give, he generally takes it all rather philosophically. In my opinion, this is because belief, in these cases, is not the actual source of the religious involvement; rather the person somehow intuits very God as being immanent in (as well as transcendent to) this world and this life. Beliefs become somewhat secondary, since the same intuition can be put in any number of apparent equivalent ways ("They call Him many who is really One"). The person of faith tends to shun literalism, dogmatism, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, which define almost solely the true believer.
Paradoxically, the person of faith is often in great and agonizing religious doubt, which the true believer rarely experiences. The true believer has projected his doubts onto others and is too busy trying to convert them to pay attention to his own inner status. The person of faith, however, begins to transcend mere consoling beliefs and thus is open to intense doubt, which the person frequently takes to be a sign of a lack of faith, which worries him sorely. But this is not usually the case.
....
In fact, the greater the faith-intuition, the greater the doubt. Zen has a profound saying on this:
Great doubt, great enlightenment;
Small doubt, small enlightenment;
No doubt, no enlightenment.
How different that is from the literal and dogmatic certainty of the true believer.
There seems to be only two ways fundamentally to alleviate this doubt and yearning. One is to revert to mere belief and clothes the doubt in more rigid and external forms (i.e., immortality symbols). The other is to act on the yearning and advance to experience.
Source:
https://www.amazon.com/Sociable-God...keywords=a+sociable+god&qid=1634309215&sr=8-1
I very much see you in that last sentence about the person of faith contrasted with the 'true believer", "The other is to act on the yearning and advance to experience." That's in all your posts. You are reaching beyond beliefs. I hope this help clarify some things for yourself.
