The tremendous power beliefs hold over people’s minds

[Trailblazer]

I have been in a debate with a Christian on another forum and I suddenly came to realize the tremendous power beliefs hold over people’s minds. That made me come to realize why people rarely if ever change their beliefs.

Do people ever stop to think that maybe they might be wrong about their cherished beliefs, and what if they are wrong, what might be the consequences? I mean if there is an afterlife where we go to live forever, forever is a very long time. What if there is a religion other than theirs is the true one that God wants us to follow in order to get to heaven?

How can people be so certain that their belief is the only one that is true and all the other religious beliefs are false? In my opinion this pertains mostly to Christians and Jews, and to a lesser degree Muslims, because at least Muslims fully accept the Abrahamic religions that preceded Islam as true religions. So as the old saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it.

I will readily admit that I believe that my religion is true, but that does not mean I believe that all the religions that preceded it are false. However, I believe the older religions are no longer useful to meet the urgent needs of the present age.

The reason I hold Baha’i beliefs is because it makes absolutely no sense to me that:

1. God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.
2. Religions that were revealed thousands of years ago would be sufficient to meet the needs of the present age.
3. There is only one religion that is true and all the others are false. Were that the case, then that would mean that God does not care about all the millions of people who do not belong to the “one true religion.” To me this is an untenable belief and there is no way to accommodate a loving God who would exclude millions of people from heaven. And even if Jews do not believe in heaven, we all know that they believe that the Torah is the only “legitimate” scripture. That would mean that the New Testament and the Qur’an were not revealed by God. I find this belief untenable.

I tend to lay my cards right on the table and if anyone wants to call me out they are welcome to do so. After all, this is the General Religious Debates forum.

So, here is what “I believe” is the problem: I believe that the reason Christians and Jews hold the beliefs that they have the only true religion is because they have misinterpreted their scriptures. This would also apply to any Muslims if they believe that they have the only true religion. I do not believe that their scriptures say that their religion was the “best” or the “last” or the only true religion. I believe that they cherry pick verses and they misinterpret them and thus they come to the wrong conclusions. I am not saying they do not know the correct meanings of any of their scriptures, I am saying that I believe there are certain scriptures they completely misinterpreted.

I am also saying that there is no way they can possibly know what all their scriptures mean because the "Book" was intended to be sealed up until the time of the end.

Daniel 12 King James Version (KJV)

4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

8 And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.

11 And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.

12 Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

So, if the time of the end has not come, then Jews and Christians cannot know what all their scriptures mean, but if the time of the end has come and they have not looked at the unsealing of the Book, then they still cannot know what all their scriptures mean so they are in the dark about the meanings of many of their scriptures.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The reason I hold Baha’i beliefs is because it makes absolutely no sense to me that:

1. God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.

I don't wish to "call you out," as you put it, and there's a lot of your OP that I think I might like to address, and may come back to. But I thought I'd start with this one first.

You say it makes no sense to you that God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.

Yet, as I understand God, as described in most religions (especially the Abrahamic ones, from which the Baha'i faith comes), God never did that. Judaism has God revealing Himself to Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, Lot, Jacob, Job, Moses, Joshua and quite a few others. Christianity accepts all that, and adds Jesus and Paul. Islam accepts all that and adds Mohammed...and so on.

And yet, given what those very religions understand about the power of God, is it even reasonable to assume that He can only communicate with one human at a time, and that that human is then charged with getting this most important and difficult message out to everyone in a way that all can understand?

This last point is especially important when one considers (as God must surely know) how humans are so deft at garbling messages so that eventually they not only bear little resemblance to the original, but might also completely contradict them? And add to that the proof that exists in the wild array of sects that are the result -- proving that God's chosen method of message delivery is not ony ineffective but counter to God's own (apparent) will?

 

[Secret Chief]

made me come to realize why people rarely if ever change their beliefs.

True for us all, yes. We could not function if our long term fundamental understanding of our world was liable to frequent seismic shifts.

Do people ever stop to think that maybe they might be wrong about their cherished beliefs, and what if they are wrong, what might be the consequences?

Occasionally. Do you?

What if there is a religion other than theirs is the true one

What if this applies to Bahai?

How can people be so certain that their belief is the only one that is true

Are you certain?

I will readily admit that I believe that my religion is true, but that does not mean I believe that all the religions that preceded it are false.

Good. However, the Bahai assertion that other religions have misunderstood or misinterpreted their teachings isn't likely to be a persuasive argument.

Religions that were revealed thousands of years ago

What about non-revealed religions?

 

[sun rise]

How can people be so certain that their belief is the only one that is true and all the other religious beliefs are false?

You're asking a psychological question about the value of feeling certain about something. That might be a course in a college.

God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.

That was one thought that led me to accept that the Avatar is always the same but comes in a different body to focus on principles which are most needed in a particular historical time while giving a push to the universe.

Religions that were revealed thousands of years ago would be sufficient to meet the needs of the present age.

For many, religion basically dies and become merely ritualistic with the life basically gone. But at least some keep the spirit of the religion alive and know a deeper meaning behind the various practices.

 

[Trailblazer]

You say it makes no sense to you that God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.

Yet, as I understand God, as most religions (especially the Abrahamic ones, from which the Baha'i faith comes), God never did that. Judaism has God revealing Himself to Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, Lot, Jacob and quite a few others. Christianity accepts all that, and adds Jesus and Paul. Islam accepts all that and adds Mohammed...and so on.

I do believe that God spoke to Adam, then Noah, then Abraham, and some others. The issue I was raising is that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe that there is a last prophet, the one they believe is the last, and that there will be no more Prophets after that prophet they believe is the last one.

Christians do not consider Jesus a prophet even though Jesus called Himself a prophet in the NT, but that is neither here nor there. Christians believe that what Jesus revealed is the FINAL Word of God, so no more religious truth could be revealed by God after the NT.

And yet, given what those very religions understand about the power of God, is it even reasonable to assume that He can only communicate with one human at a time, and that that human is then charged with getting this most important and difficult message out to everyone in a way that all can understand?

I do not believe it is about what God can do, but rather it is about what God does; there is no reason to assume that God does everything He can do.

It is reasonable to me that God speaks to only one Messenger at a time, but obviously it is not reasonable to everyone, unless they share my beliefs or other beliefs that state that to be the case.

This last point is especially important when one considers (as God must surely know) how humans are so deft at garbling messages so that eventually they not only bear little resemblance to the original, but might also completely contradict them? And add to that the proof that exists in the wild array of sects that are the result -- proving that God's chosen method of message delivery is not only ineffective but counter to God's own (apparent) will?

It is true that men have garbled what was revealed in the scriptures and misinterpreted them such that eventually they bear little resemblance to the original, and that is one reason God sends another Messenger, to straighten out what men have garbled and misinterpreted in the previous scriptures and reveal a fresh new message.

But what men have done with the message after it was delivered has no bearing in the Message Delivery System, because all that happened after the messages were delivered and all the problems were caused by humans, they were not caused by the Messengers. Moreover, there is a way to prevent what has happened in the past religions and I believe God has made provisions for this in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. By having the Messenger wrote His own scriptures and by having interpreters that He appointed to interpret those scriptures a lot of the pitfalls of previous religions can be avoided.

 

[Trailblazer]

You're asking a psychological question about the value of feeling certain about something. That might be a course in a college.

That is true, but since my training is in psychology, it is also something I thought was important to bring to people's attention, in order to get people to think about why they believe what they believe and why they are so certain they alone are right.

That was one thought that led me to accept that the Avatar is always the same but comes in a different body to focus on principles which are most needed in a particular historical time while giving a push to the universe.

That is also what Baha'is believe.

For many, religion basically dies and become merely ritualistic with the life basically gone. But at least some keep the spirit of the religion alive and know a deeper meaning behind the various practices.

That is also what Baha'is believe.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do not believe it is about what God can do, but rather it is about what God does; there is no reason to assume that God does everything He can do.

It is reasonable to me that God speaks to only one Messenger at a time, but obviously it is not reasonable to everyone, unless they share my beliefs or other beliefs that state that to be the case.

But you ignore the question that I asked, having to do with whether or not God understands that his method of "getting the word out" is doomed to fail -- although you do allude to it shortly, which I will get to.

To me, that implies a degree of incompentence that I might accept in an elected US President, but not in an omniscient and omnipotent God.

It is true that men have garbled what was revealed in the scriptures and misinterpreted them such that eventually they bear little resemblance to the original, and that is one reason God sends another Messenger, to straighten out what men have garbled and misinterpreted in the previous scriptures and reveal a fresh new message.

And you are suggesting that not only has God done this time and again, God is planning to continue doing this time and again, even while still knowing that IT DOESN'T WORK. One of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing, over and over again, while knowing that it is doomed to failure.

So is God insane?

But what men have done with the message after it was delivered has no bearing in the Message Delivery System, because all that happened after the messages were delivered and all the problems were caused by humans, they were not caused by the Messengers. Moreover, there is a way to prevent what has happened in the past religions and I believe God has made provisions for this in the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. By having the Messenger wrote His own scriptures and by having interpreters that He appointed to interpret those scriptures a lot of the pitfalls of previous religions can be avoided.

Really? That's too convoluted for me, I'm afraid. So God doesn't just send "messengers," he recruites some translators, too? This takes me into the realm of special pleading, I'm sorry to say.

 

[Trailblazer]

First, I want to commend you on your series of thoughtful questions.

Trailblazer said: made me come to realize why people rarely if ever change their beliefs.

True for us all, yes. We could not function if our long term fundamental understanding of our world was liable to frequent seismic shifts.

I agree.

Trailblazer said: Do people ever stop to think that maybe they might be wrong about their cherished beliefs, and what if they are wrong, what might be the consequences?

Occasionally. Do you?

Not very often, and it I do it is just a passing thought. I think that even if I was wrong about my religion, and even if there is no God, what is the worst that could happen to me, as long as I lived a good life? Because in my mind I am absolutely certain that there is not only one religion whereby we will be saved, I have no worries about going to hell.

Trailblazer said: What if there is a religion other than theirs is the true one.

What if this applies to Bahai?

See above. Unless that other religion was the Only Way to God and there was a hell I would go to as the result of not believing in that religion, it would not be a problem for me if Baha’i turned out not to be the true religion. I would know that I did the best I could in my search for truth and I was sincere in believing what I believed, and that is all any of us can ever do.

Trailblazer said: How can people be so certain that their belief is the only one that is true

Are you certain?

I am certain and I know why I am certain. I was asking how others can be certain.

Trailblazer said: I will readily admit that I believe that my religion is true, but that does not mean I believe that all the religions that preceded it are false.

Good. However, the Bahai assertion that other religions have misunderstood or misinterpreted their teachings isn't likely to be a persuasive argument.

That might be a problem if we were trying to persuade people. I have no interest in persuading people because I do not believe that is in my job assignment.

Trailblazer said: Religions that were revealed thousands of years ago

What about non-revealed religions?

I do not believe that religions that were not revealed by God are true religions. They might have some truth in them, but I believe they are subject to error unless they were revealed by a Messenger of God.

 

[Nimos]

Hi Trailblazer

1. God would speak once to one Messenger/Prophet and never speak again.

What if God never spoke to anyone, did you consider that option?

2. Religions that were revealed thousands of years ago would be sufficient to meet the needs of the present age.

Have you considered that maybe the religions came into being, because of the lack of capabilities to explain the natural world? They did not have the equipment to examine these things, nor the ability to share knowledge and experiences as we are today or even earlier in history with books etc. And therefore Gods provided the best and most rational explanation at the time? and also due to everyone having their own gods back then?

3. There is only one religion that is true and all the others are false. Were that the case, then that would mean that God does not care about all the millions of people who do not belong to the “one true religion.” To me this is an untenable belief and there is no way to accommodate a loving God who would exclude millions of people from heaven. And even if Jews do not believe in heaven, we all know that they believe that the Torah is the only “legitimate” scripture. That would mean that the New Testament and the Qur’an were not revealed by God. I find this belief untenable.

If you have considered the first two options as being possible, then the answer to this one could obviously be that none of the religions are true

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I have been in a debate with a Christian on another forum and I suddenly came to realize the tremendous power beliefs hold over people’s minds. That made me come to realize why people rarely if ever change their beliefs.

Hi mate,
Just wanted to pull out this one thread from your post. A psychological concept worth studying (imho) is cognitive dissonance. It speaks directly to what you are talking about here. It doesn't only apply to religious beliefs, but pretty much anything where there is a level of consequence to change. I'm horribly paraphrasing it, but basically the amount invested in a position increases the stress needed before someone would change that position.

There are some pretty amazing examples where people have eventually come to ridiculous, self-harming positions of belief, because their beliefs have been slowly changed over time, with each change being small in and of itself. Eventually, accepting each additional change or layer on top of the pre-existing beliefs became far easier than tearing down the whole belief structure and admitting everything the person had grown to believe over time was complete bunkum.

Cults commonly use variants on this sort of conditioning, but the concept itself is universal, and not limited to harmful and deliberate conditioning.

 

[Trailblazer]

But you ignore the question that I asked, having to do with whether or not God understands that his method of "getting the word out" is doomed to fail -- although you do allude to it shortly, which I will get to.

To me, that implies a degree of incompentence that I might accept in an elected US President, but not in an omniscient and omnipotent God.

The answer is that God knew what would happen by using Messengers, because God is All-Knowing.

Messengers did not FAIL to get the word out so there is no incompetence on God’s part.
The only failure was on the part of humans who rejected the Messengers.

And you are suggesting that not only has God done this time and again, God is planning to continue doing this time and again, even while still knowing that IT DOESN'T WORK. One of the definitions of insanity is trying the same thing, over and over again, while knowing that it is doomed to failure.

I am saying that I believe God will continue to use this method of communication throughout all of eternity because it is God’s chosen method. I also am saying that this method DOES WORK to accomplish what God wants to accomplish. From a human perspective some humans imagine it did not work because the method did not work to get them what they wanted, or what they "imagine" God would want, but they would have to know what God wanted before they could say the method didn't work.

So is God insane?

No, God knows exactly what He is doing and why He is doing it because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. It is some humans who are illogical if they believe they could ever know more or be wiser than God, because that is logically impossible.

Really? That's too convoluted for me, I'm afraid. So God doesn't just send "messengers," he recruites some translators, too? This takes me into the realm of special pleading, I'm sorry to say.

God did not recruit the interpreters to interpret the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Baha’u’llah appointed them in His Will and Testament. This is a new thing that has never before occurred in religious history.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The answer is that God knew what would happen by using Messengers, because God is All-Knowing.

Messengers did not FAIL to get the word out so there is no incompetence on God’s part.
The only failure was on the part of humans who rejected the Messengers.

I am saying that I believe God will continue to use this method of communication throughout all of eternity because it is God’s chosen method. I also am saying that this method DOES WORK to accomplish what God wants to accomplish. From a human perspective some humans imagine it did not work because the method did not work to get them what they wanted, or what they "imagine" God would want, but they would have to know what God wanted before they could say the method didn't work.

No, God knows exactly what He is doing and why He is doing it because God is All-Knowing and All-Wise. It is some humans who are illogical if they believe they could ever know more or be wiser than God, because that is logically impossible.

God did not recruit the interpreters to interpret the Writings of Baha’u’llah, Baha’u’llah appointed them in His Will and Testament. This is a new thing that has never before occurred in religious history.

But of course, you must really admit, every word you wrote here is a matter entirely of your opinion.

 

[Secret Chief]

First, I want to commend you on your series of thoughtful questions.

I agree.

Not very often, and it I do it is just a passing thought. I think that even if I was wrong about my religion, and even if there is no God, what is the worst that could happen to me, as long as I lived a good life? Because in my mind I am absolutely certain that there is not only one religion whereby we will be saved, I have no worries about going to hell.

See above. Unless that other religion was the Only Way to God and there was a hell I would go to as the result of not believing in that religion, it would not be a problem for me if Baha’i turned out not to be the true religion. I would know that I did the best I could in my search for truth and I was sincere in believing what I believed, and that is all any of us can ever do.

I am certain and I know why I am certain. I was asking how others can be certain.

That might be a problem if we were trying to persuade people. I have no interest in persuading people because I do not believe that is in my job assignment.

I do not believe that religions that were not revealed by God are true religions. They might have some truth in them, but I believe they are subject to error unless they were revealed by a Messenger of God.

First, I want to commend you on your series of thoughtful questions.

I agree.

Not very often, and it I do it is just a passing thought. I think that even if I was wrong about my religion, and even if there is no God, what is the worst that could happen to me, as long as I lived a good life? Because in my mind I am absolutely certain that there is not only one religion whereby we will be saved, I have no worries about going to hell.

See above. Unless that other religion was the Only Way to God and there was a hell I would go to as the result of not believing in that religion, it would not be a problem for me if Baha’i turned out not to be the true religion. I would know that I did the best I could in my search for truth and I was sincere in believing what I believed, and that is all any of us can ever do.

I am certain and I know why I am certain. I was asking how others can be certain.

That might be a problem if we were trying to persuade people. I have no interest in persuading people because I do not believe that is in my job assignment.

I do not believe that religions that were not revealed by God are true religions. They might have some truth in them, but I believe they are subject to error unless they were revealed by a Messenger of God.

First, I want to commend you on your series of thoughtful questions.

I agree.

Not very often, and it I do it is just a passing thought. I think that even if I was wrong about my religion, and even if there is no God, what is the worst that could happen to me, as long as I lived a good life? Because in my mind I am absolutely certain that there is not only one religion whereby we will be saved, I have no worries about going to hell.

See above. Unless that other religion was the Only Way to God and there was a hell I would go to as the result of not believing in that religion, it would not be a problem for me if Baha’i turned out not to be the true religion. I would know that I did the best I could in my search for truth and I was sincere in believing what I believed, and that is all any of us can ever do.

I am certain and I know why I am certain. I was asking how others can be certain.

That might be a problem if we were trying to persuade people. I have no interest in persuading people because I do not believe that is in my job assignment.

I do not believe that religions that were not revealed by God are true religions. They might have some truth in them, but I believe they are subject to error unless they were revealed by a Messenger of God.

Thank you for your thoughtful answers.
If a non-revealed religion is not considered to be a true religion why does Bahai concern itself with one (ie Buddhism)?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, look who showed up to dinner, my favorite atheist… Welcome.

What if God never spoke to anyone, did you consider that option?

Yep. I also considered the option that God does not exist. Given what we are able to observe in the world, there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and sends Messengers who establish religions, or
2. God exists but does not communicate with humans, or
3. God does not exist

Have you considered that maybe the religions came into being, because of the lack of capabilities to explain the natural world?

No, because that is not the purpose of religions and they do not explain the natural world, scientists do that.

They did not have the equipment to examine these things, nor the ability to share knowledge and experiences as we are today or even earlier in history with books etc. And therefore Gods provided the best and most rational explanation at the time? and also due to everyone having their own gods back then?

Oh, that is what you are talking about the Old Testament. Imo, it did not explain jack squat about the natural world.

If you have considered the first two options as being possible, then the answer to this one could obviously be that none of the religions are true.

Indeed, that is one of the logical possibilities.

 

[Trailblazer]

But of course, you must really admit, every word you wrote here is a matter entirely of your opinion.

No, it is a matter of my belief.

 

[Trailblazer]

If a non-revealed religion is not considered to be a true religion why does Bahai concern itself with one (ie Buddhism)?

Because we believe it is a revealed religion, and I believe it is a very cool one at that.

 

[Secret Chief]

Because we believe it is a revealed religion, and I believe it is a very cool one at that.

Hmmmmmm I knew you'd say that! I presume this ties in with Buddhists misunderstanding Buddhist teaching and/or the teaching being corrupted over time?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it is a matter of my belief.

And that's fine. I see no way of differentiating between the two.

Of course, I ought to point out that many people once believed that joining the workforce and getting a job would dry out a woman’s uterus, and were absolutely convinced that cats were the familiars of Satan.

You'll forgive me if I don't put a lot of stock in what people believe...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well, look who showed up to dinner, my favorite atheist… Welcome.

Yep. I also considered the option that God does not exist. Given what we are able to observe in the world, there are three mutually exclusive logical possibilities:

1. God exists and sends Messengers who establish religions, or
2. God exists but does not communicate with humans, or
3. God does not exist

You left something out, I'm afraid....

4. God exists and communicates with every person such that everybody knows what THEY need to know, irrespective of what other know-it-all bigots presume.
5. God exists and doesn't send messengers, but a bunch of charlatans pretend they've been sent by God.
6. God does not exist, but a bunch of charlatans pretend he does so they can fleece the sheep.
7. God exists, and communicates with sheep and other animals, but leaves humans to their own devices because he got tired of their stupidity.

Oh, and probably left out options 8 to 306, but I don't know what they are.

 

[Nimos]

No, because that is not the purpose of religions and they do not explain the natural world, scientists do that.

I agree, that it is not the purpose of religions today to explain the natural world.
But back then, if you had questions about the natural world, let's say you are walking down the road taking care of your herd of goats. Suddenly lightning from the "heavens" strike down to earth. Which even today when we know what it is, is pretty damn impressive. Where would you go to get an explanation of what this is and how that is possible?

Zechariah 10:1
1 "Ask the LORD for rain in the spring—the LORD who fashions lightning thunderstorms, giving rain showers to mankind along with grain in the fields.

How many people do you think at the time would disagree with that explanation?

Oh, that is what you are talking about the Old Testament. Imo, it did not explain jack squat about the natural world.

I agree, but lets be fair here. They didn't exactly stumble around in universities and schools back then Yet they were most likely just as interested in explanations for these things, as we are today. So how do you explain it, when you have no idea how to even examine these things, let alone any equipment? A society where God are the most natural explanation for these things. So one have to have a go at the OT with that in mind, these people back then probably weren't stupid in regards to what resources they had at their disposal.