Question to all faiths, about all the other faiths?

Question

Which person do you assume to be more secure about his/her beliefs?

1. A person that can quote every detail of his/her particular holy book, speaks in words of Truth, knows he/she is right and hardly can imagine somebody believing something else.

2. A person that doesn't care much about the details of his/her belief system, and accepts others basically just as they are.

Answer 1

I can not tell you from the little you have put here, it depends on what or who is in the heart.

Answer 2

that's not enough to go on. I believe #1 is incorrect for not being able to see things through others' eyes. He or she should be more open and tolerant. I believe that he or she has not understood ultimate truth fully, which is why his or her beliefs are so narrow. However, I cannot say this one is not secure in what he or she believes.

I would think that someone who doesn't care much about the details of his or her belief system would not be very devoted, and since they do not study it, they would not know really whether it was a sound belief or not! So I would think that if questioned, they could start to have some doubts pretty quickly.

Answer 3

I can't determine from the data.

The first might "feel" more secure,
The second might hardly think about it.

Who is more secure will depend on how they can handle a fact or an experience which doesn't fit their beliefs.
Will it be denied?
Will it be made to fit?
Will the belief be modified in some way to take it on board?
Or will it bring the whole system of thought tumbling down like a house of cards?

I suspect type1 will be more hardened to stray "difficult" facts, but if one cannot be denied the effect will be pretty drastic, where type 2 will not notice, or not be troubled by a lot, but be more prone to adapt and shift somewhat over time.

Answer 4

This is plenty to go on.

Number one repelled me from religion at a very young age-somewhere between 8-10 (I was already asking too many questions about those ridiculous stories). Those people have not really thought about their beliefs/convictions in depth.

Number two reminds me of a landlady I once rented from that went to church every Sunday, was socially liberal, BELIEVED in love thy neighbor, do unto others..., or as she said, "Live and let live". This was a small, very conservative town, and she was 83. She's probably the only real Christian I've ever met, and she was a joy to know.

So, I believe number two is more secure in their beliefs-they interpret things after really thinking about what it means, rather than what some red-faced hog is screaming at them from a pulpit-excuse me,-stage.

Answer 5

Number two. Just because someone can memorize lines in a book doesn't mean they are living their life according to what the bible says. Talking is talking but action is action.

It isn't anyones job to hold others up to standards set by other people. I believe everyone has the right to worship and believe what they want. What makes a good person is their morals and values, not who they choose to worship. I believe in spirituality and in God. I have a friend who's a Jehovah Witness and another a Mormon and another who is jewish. All my best friends. None of us shove each others religion down the throat of others.

Answer 6

Neither or both.

It's easier to recognise insecurity than security.
People who are insecure tend to be afraid. Fear tends to lead to aggression so if person 1 gets angry when faced with disbelief or a different belief and uses their knowledge as a weapon then they are afraid and insecure. But, if they speak it calmly and can happily spend time and listen to those who think differently then they feel secure.

Person 2 may not really believe anything and be happy anyway. Then they are secure. Or, they could appear tolerant because they are not sure what to believe and are always searching and could therefore feel insecure.

Answer 7

I am not sure I would use either one of those as a reason ( I once knew a guy who could quote the Egyptiam book of the ded. He wasn't either one) I would more likely trust in the security of the beliefs of a person that has gone through a period of doubt and has worked through those problems.

Answer 8

Fasinating question.

I think they're both flawed because they approach things from opposite ends of the spectrum. As you intended no doubt.

You have to define "security" - and that means, something like "firmness. How solid a person is." Then you have to go with #1. They at least have looked at it. When questioned, they have a response. It might not be original thought, but, its something.

I think...there are people that care about the god question. And those that don't. We are two that do care. We have a few others in our club. Most...don't. I dunno why. I don't think they're wrong for not caring. I am, perhaps, "weird" for caring so much.

For whatever it's worth...I've always been interested in it. It fasinates me. When I was a fundy. And for the majority of my life, when I wasn't.

The person that is most secure about his or her beliefs is the person who isn't deperate you think just like they do. :)

Answer 9

I would say the second. Faith should be your sacred relationship with God, not an audition for how much you know and how you can impress others. Because the in doing so you loose focus on the important detail which is coming closer to God, and while it may impress other and may make you feel secure that your right and others are wrong, it feeds into your ego and promotes vanity.

Answer 10

i care about what the Bible says above all other belief systems that man has come up with. the Word of God should be taken above all other things. if all mankind that call themselve Christans would believe the Word of God and leave mans idealogy along. then there would be no need of a question like this to be asked.

Answer 11

I see these distinctions all the time and it really bothers me. The second situation is better. The first person knows a lot of knowledge, but if they never do anything with it what's the point. Knowing how to do something and doing it are completely different.