Can You Follow Someone, Without Believing In Them?

[wizanda]

For me having read lots of religions, don't see the necessity to believe in the messenger; yet their message, and if it adds up logically within all the other knowledge.

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Why on earth would anyone follow somebody they don't believe in? Why the need to follow somebody at all? Are we all sheep?

 

[wizanda]

Why on earth would anyone follow somebody they don't believe in?

We follow teachers at school, we don't believe in them; we just respect their knowledge.

Why the need to follow somebody at all? Are we all sheep?

Did almost post that same sentence; yet didn't want to imply some sheeple seem to be a bit lost, thus they look for somebody to follow around....Regardless sometimes of if what they had to say adds up.

There are numerous spiritual teachers with some great ideas; yet not sure why we need to believe in them, and not believe in what they had to say.

Think this is a part of the madness in the world, some of us are not listening to what some people have to say; yet then claim they believe in them, whereas some of us have respect for the knowledge first, before the person.

 

[fantome profane]

If you are asking about taking inspiration from fictional characters then I don't see any problem or contradiction in that at all. Fiction is simply the medium through which some real person attempts to convey ideas. If those ideas are worthy, follow them.

 

[SomeRandom]

I can kind of do that within the context of art.
Of my most influential literary idols my two favorites are Roald Dahl and Oscar Wilde. Both were not exactly nice people by all accounts I have heard. But their philosophies on art and indeed on life has merit, imo.

For me it's easier to do with something like art. Because no one is being inherently deified (with the possible exception of Bardolotry) so there's no cultural pressure to see the makers and shakers as flawless or messengers of a higher being. Just people with cool ideas.

With Yeshua (or Jesus) or whichever holy leader there is a lot more emphasis placed on their character. As it is often an expectation that they live by example. They not only have to have cool ideas, they have to live by their own ideals every day.

Having said that, it's entirely possible to follow a religious leader's teachings and not actually like them at all.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

For me having read lots of religions, don't see the necessity to believe in the messenger; yet their message, and if it adds up logically within all the other knowledge.

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

To my mind, this seems to be a simple question (as evidenced by a survey requesting only a yes or no answer), but when I reflect on it, there appears an underlying complexity. I believe it stems from not distinguishing between the 'object' and/or the body of the 'someone' delivering the message and the state of consciousness that object/body exhibits or is "atOne" with--i.e., the Source of the message itself.

This is the dilemma for sense-bound seekers. It's how we get fans and fanatics worshipping a prophet rather than the 'God' who sent and moves within him. Until one gets even a glimpse/taste/experience of the Oneness Consciousness possessing the messenger, it is only natural for a human to mistake the object of the senses (the charming body, the lustrous eyes, the pretty statue, the rugged cross--the inspiring yet ephemeral symbols of the deal) for the real deal. Luckily and in accordance with divine law, if one keeps appealing to the prophet, the prophet himself (who has zero skin in the outcome of the game) will steer the devotee to his (our) beloved Master/God who will manifest in the form the seeker holds most dear.

Why do I say these masters have zero at stake? Loving and surrendering to God is an individual choice, made by individual sparks of OneGod on a timetable basically of their choosing. God in Yeshua said, "Behold I stand at the door and knock...."

He didn't follow that up with, "...and if you don't answer it, I'm going to kick it down."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Some of us respect the teacher because she/he gives knowledge as well as the knowledge itself because it comes from the teacher. It's like in a classroom. I teach. I don't expect my adult students to worship me, thank gosh; and, we do have a invisible consensus that I am not just spiting out knowledge that they can take in internally. They also have a consensus that respect for me as a teacher who gave this knowledge is equally the same. That's why (generalizing for my point) they want to learn from me, not just because of my knowledge but they trust me to give it to them and the knowledge I give.

Think this is a part of the madness in the world, some of us are not listening to what some people have to say; yet then claim they believe in them, whereas some of us have respect for the knowledge first, before the person.

How and why would you believe in the knowledge of someone if you don't believe in them?​

Going back to my teaching, if my students didn't trust me and have some level of respect and expectation from me, what is the purpose and motivation of them gaining knowledge from me? Yes, they can find this same knowledge in a book or hear it (rather than listen) to it without making a relationship with the teacher to understand it better and probably do well. I find students succeed more when they trust and know their teachers as well as the knowledge.

If they respect the teacher first, then they trust the knowledge they receive from the teacher is worth taking in. If they trust the knowledge first, they could be fooled because they don't trust and test the teacher to trust him or her. Making a connection with the object or person of "worship" is important not because of bowing down and idolizing (if that's what you mean?) but more of respect and reverence that what is given is well respected and lived.

So, based on my teaching and being a student as well, there isn't a "rather than" in the equation; it's an "and". We have respect for the knowledge and the person. The parent and the lesson. The boss and the assignment that leads us experience for a well deserved promotion and so forth.

Spiritually, the idea is no different. Unless you are implying that people are idolizing the teachers and disregarding the knowledge the teacher gave? Using the teacher as if they are the knowledge?​

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

Another example with teaching. I teach English as a Second Language. If students came in with little to no acquisition of English and saw text books on their desks and were required to find the abstract knowledge of the cosmos of English language and idioms, they'd be at a lost. They can pray all day and night. They can flip through chapters and so forth. However, without that source (person or object-say a dictionary), how can they start with their learning? That's why in many religions we have priests, mentors, elders, etc. They aren't replacing knowledge. Because of their experience, they are taking their knowledge and giving it to the next in line. So, it's an "and" situation really.

Unless you mean maybe they are idolizing the person or object and completely disregarding the knowledge? If so, then there's no point in worshiping the person/object. If they worship the statement but do not give thought to the teacher, then I find that disrespectful to the teacher.​

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Some of us respect the teacher because she/he gives knowledge as well as the knowledge itself because it comes from the teacher. It's like in a classroom. I teach. I don't expect my adult students to worship me, thank gosh; and, we do have a invisible consensus that I am not just spiting out knowledge that they can take in internally. They also have a consensus that respect for me as a teacher who gave this knowledge is equally the same. That's why (generalizing for my point) they want to learn from me, not just because of my knowledge but they trust me to give it to them and the knowledge I give.

How and why would you believe in the knowledge of someone if you don't believe in them?​

Going back to my teaching, if my students didn't trust me and have some level of respect and expectation from me, what is the purpose and motivation of them gaining knowledge from me? Yes, they can find this same knowledge in a book or hear it (rather than listen) to it without making a relationship with the teacher to understand it better and probably do well. I find students succeed more when they trust and know their teachers as well as the knowledge.

If they respect the teacher first, then they trust the knowledge they receive from the teacher is worth taking in. If they trust the knowledge first, they could be fooled because they don't trust and test the teacher to trust him or her. Making a connection with the object or person of "worship" is important not because of bowing down and idolizing (if that's what you mean?) but more of respect and reverence that what is given is well respected and lived.

So, based on my teaching and being a student as well, there isn't a "rather than" in the equation; it's an "and". We have respect for the knowledge and the person. The parent and the lesson. The boss and the assignment that leads us experience for a well deserved promotion and so forth.

Spiritually, the idea is no different. Unless you are implying that people are idolizing the teachers and disregarding the knowledge the teacher gave? Using the teacher as if they are the knowledge?​

Another example with teaching. I teach English as a Second Language. If students came in with little to no acquisition of English and saw text books on their desks and were required to find the abstract knowledge of the cosmos of English language and idioms, they'd be at a lost. They can pray all day and night. They can flip through chapters and so forth. However, without that source (person or object-say a dictionary), how can they start with their learning? That's why in many religions we have priests, mentors, elders, etc. They aren't replacing knowledge. Because of their experience, they are taking their knowledge and giving it to the next in line. So, it's an "and" situation really.

Unless you mean maybe they are idolizing the person or object and completely disregarding the knowledge? If so, then there's no point in worshiping the person/object. If they worship the statement but do not give thought to the teacher, then I find that disrespectful to the teacher.​

Greetings, Carlita
I respectfully disagree with your analogy. I don't think spiritual knowledge and factual knowledge can be compared so easily. The gathering of proof for most of the knowledge you are talking about [knowledge of changing phenomena perceivable to the senses] is done by people who then write or speak of it and then (some) go on to 'teach' it. As you say, the recipients, based on whether they ‘trust’ the giver or his credentials or his methods, then agree that it’s ‘knowledge.’ They do not gather the proof themselves.

But what fool will trust his spiritual knowledge to that kind of second-hand proof? Proof for spiritual knowledge of the Changeless Eternal Truth has to be sought and granted by and to oneself. Even though a teacher (of spirituality) might speak or write a thousand “cookbooks” on how to experience the knowledge s/he has, until someone actually cooks a recipe and EATS the product of his efforts, so long he will feel hungry, that is, he will not have the experience—the proof substantiating his knowledge-gathering efforts.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Greetings, Carlita
I respectfully disagree with your analogy. I don't think spiritual knowledge and factual knowledge can be compared so easily. The gathering of proof for most of the knowledge you are talking about [knowledge of changing phenomena perceivable to the senses] is done by people who then write or speak of it and then (some) go on to 'teach' it. As you say, the recipients, based on whether they ‘trust’ the giver or his credentials or his methods, then agree that it’s ‘knowledge.’ They do not gather the proof themselves.

But what fool will trust his spiritual knowledge to that kind of second-hand proof? Proof for spiritual knowledge of the Changeless Eternal Truth has to be sought and granted by and to oneself. Even though a teacher (of spirituality) might speak or write a thousand “cookbooks” on how to experience the knowledge s/he has, until someone actually cooks a recipe and EATS the product of his efforts, so long he will feel hungry, that is, he will not have the experience—the proof substantiating his knowledge-gathering efforts.

That makes sense. I can't disagree. I'm thinking it's not an either or thing but an and situation. I don't need a teacher to learn about life and my spiritual well-being and I find it beneficial. I read in one book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind. The author says, "if a Zen master cannot bow to his student, he isn't worthy of being a Zen master".

Think of the teacher and textbook as part of yourself and source of knowledge. If we separate the teacher from knowledge, then I understand your view. If we do not separate them, then respecting the knowledge and understanding oneself through it is understanding the teacher who gave it. It becomes a perfect unity with humanity when everything and everyone becomes your teacher.

In other words, we can't learn about life just siting on or cushion or standing still.



With the cookbook, I understand that. When I teach, it's not me that's giving the students internal knowledge. I'm just a messenger. It's up to the students to apply that knowledge in their personal and business life in order to help them in everyday affairs and conversation. So, having a teacher isn't taking the focus off of oneself. It just means we are not a one man island.

 

[Sundance]

Some of us respect the teacher because she/he gives knowledge as well as the knowledge itself because it comes from the teacher. It's like in a classroom. I teach. I don't expect my adult students to worship me, thank gosh; and, we do have a invisible consensus that I am not just spiting out knowledge that they can take in internally. They also have a consensus that respect for me as a teacher who gave this knowledge is equally the same. That's why (generalizing for my point) they want to learn from me, not just because of my knowledge but they trust me to give it to them and the knowledge I give.

How and why would you believe in the knowledge of someone if you don't believe in them?​

Going back to my teaching, if my students didn't trust me and have some level of respect and expectation from me, what is the purpose and motivation of them gaining knowledge from me? Yes, they can find this same knowledge in a book or hear it (rather than listen) to it without making a relationship with the teacher to understand it better and probably do well. I find students succeed more when they trust and know their teachers as well as the knowledge.

If they respect the teacher first, then they trust the knowledge they receive from the teacher is worth taking in. If they trust the knowledge first, they could be fooled because they don't trust and test the teacher to trust him or her. Making a connection with the object or person of "worship" is important not because of bowing down and idolizing (if that's what you mean?) but more of respect and reverence that what is given is well respected and lived.

So, based on my teaching and being a student as well, there isn't a "rather than" in the equation; it's an "and". We have respect for the knowledge and the person. The parent and the lesson. The boss and the assignment that leads us experience for a well deserved promotion and so forth.

Spiritually, the idea is no different. Unless you are implying that people are idolizing the teachers and disregarding the knowledge the teacher gave? Using the teacher as if they are the knowledge?​

Another example with teaching. I teach English as a Second Language. If students came in with little to no acquisition of English and saw text books on their desks and were required to find the abstract knowledge of the cosmos of English language and idioms, they'd be at a lost. They can pray all day and night. They can flip through chapters and so forth. However, without that source (person or object-say a dictionary), how can they start with their learning? That's why in many religions we have priests, mentors, elders, etc. They aren't replacing knowledge. Because of their experience, they are taking their knowledge and giving it to the next in line. So, it's an "and" situation really.

Unless you mean maybe they are idolizing the person or object and completely disregarding the knowledge? If so, then there's no point in worshiping the person/object. If they worship the statement but do not give thought to the teacher, then I find that disrespectful to the teacher.​

​

​

Carlita, my dear, you beat me to it. Very cool!

My sentiments echo hers:

To say that you follow the teachings of a religious Teacher, but you have no regard for the Teacher himself, constitutes hypocrisy. You lie to the adherent, and you deceive yourself.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

That makes sense. I can't disagree. I'm thinking it's not an either or thing but an and situation. I don't need a teacher to learn about life and my spiritual well-being and I find it beneficial. I read in one book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind. The author says, "if a Zen master cannot bow to his student, he isn't worthy of being a Zen master".

100% agree. Life itself is a great teacher, and what greater evidence of God's grace than to be granted the satsang of a realized Teacher? Anchored in a human body (until yer not) with all that means, trying to negotiate the path without the teachings and teacher? In Kali Yuga, is it even possible?? But, here, too, remember: the Zen master is not bowing to his student. He is bowing to GOD in his student while teaching the student--and sometimes meeting with great resistance for his efforts!--to do likewise.

Think of the teacher and textbook as part of yourself and source of knowledge. If we separate the teacher from knowledge, then I understand your view. If we do not separate them, then respecting the knowledge and understanding oneself through it is understanding the teacher who gave it. It becomes a perfect unity with humanity when everything and everyone becomes your teacher. In other words, we can't learn about life just siting on or cushion or standing still.

Uh, are you insinuating that anyone here is just sitting on a cushion?? Or standing still? It feels like there's a lot of vigor in the seekers here, ma'am. I am really looking closely at your advice to "Think of the teacher and textbook as part of yourself and source of knowledge." It actually makes my heart beat faster to think that thought, so I'm VERY intrigued. Rightly or wrongly, I equate that physical phenomenon with my horse of an ego going 'on alert.' Immediately, I pull out my mantra lasso and hope I catch the thing before it's a half mile down the road.

And the first thing that came to mind was, "I'm being asked to embrace the ephemeral as part of myself and I don't think she's referring to the eternal Self." The teacher and the textbook and all of Maya and Her permutations are not Satchidananda, the Reality Neti, neti. I don't think it's possible to have perfect unity with humanity, by definition egoistic. One can only have perfect unity with God in that humanity, no? Because of this outlook, even though I "am" a long-time ordained minister, I have genuine doubts about my qualifications to "minister" on any kind of broader scale. I am not kind to my own ego and to the chagrin of many, I do not pamper others, either. No one should think, however, that compassion isn't coursing through me. I have surely "been there, done that." As I laughingly say, "I can design the T-shirt, front and back."

...It just means we are not a one man island.

Here, too, I disagree, because it feels like you are saying all the individual human egos bumping together (humanity) constitute an island? The very definition of ego is "separation" from Self. I see no evidence at all of any cohesivity in humanity (especially today) so Self alone is the island I try to keep my feet planted on. And then there are days when it feels like I'm drowning offshore. By the blessings of my Teacher, whose holy feet are yet my refuge, the Holy Name comes front and center to my aid. Koti koti pranams to the Holy Teachers of all faiths....

 

[Orbit]

For me having read lots of religions, don't see the necessity to believe in the messenger; yet their message, and if it adds up logically within all the other knowledge.

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

We need to separate the claims here. By "believe" you seem to be implying belief that Jesus is the son of God. I don't believe that literally. But you don't have to believe that bit of dogma to follow his teachings.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Eh. I understand what you're saying but the god part isn't really part of my worldview.

Uh, are you insinuating that anyone here is just sitting on a cushion?? Or standing still? It feels like there's a lot of vigor in the seekers here, ma'am. I am really looking closely at your advice to "Think of the teacher and textbook as part of yourself and source of knowledge." It actually makes my heart beat faster to think that thought, so I'm VERY intrigued. Rightly or wrongly, I equate that physical phenomenon with my horse of an ego going 'on alert.' Immediately, I pull out my mantra lasso and hope I catch the thing before it's a half mile down the road.

I guess I'll try to make it personal. I can't learn about life without not only looking within myself but outside of myself as well. External things don't define who I am but it is a part of life as well as I; so, everything and everyone becomes my teacher. Once I separate myself from people and my environment (my teachers), then I am siting alone on my cushion and become a one-man island. I'd like to be a Bodhisattva of the Earth, but I can't be so standing still. So, in my personal view and practice, helping others in service etc is a mark of The Buddha.

I can't learn from life by only looking internally in myself. I have to "get out there". I have to practice. This is blunt and only refers to me. It's not a generalization of others who each of us have our own religious or moral views.

Here, too, I disagree, because it feels like you are saying all the individual human egos bumping together (humanity) constitute an island? The very definition of ego is "separation" from Self. I see no evidence at all of any cohesivity in humanity (especially today) so Self alone is the island I try to keep my feet planted on. And then there are days when it feels like I'm drowning offshore. By the blessings of my Teacher, whose holy feet are yet my refuge, the Holy Name comes front and center to my aid. Koti koti pranams to the Holy Teachers of all faiths....

Being "one's on island" just means separating yourself from the teacher (people and environment) to find enlightenment within yourself. It's not being egotistic or selfish. Some people focus on self than others. Some focus on others than self. I thought I was the former when I practiced Zen; but, after teaching and being around people, I realize I am the latter.

I find myself alone in a one man's land if I am not in communion with like believers. If I don't have a goal and passion to help others, my faith isn't full. I believe The Buddha has intentions to help others help themselves from suffering. He did go to meditate by himself but he came back to his disciples and reflected his teachings on those who understood it as well as explained it in different ways so those who cannot, would. I find that valuable when teaching. It let's be be a Buddha. I'm not longer alone in a one-man's land but part of humanity.

That's my personal belief. Some people feel they are a part of life by focusing on self then others. I don't understand that; and, that's okay. I try not to generalize.

 

[wizanda]

How and why would you believe in the knowledge of someone if you don't believe in them?

Not sure I've ever believed in one of my teachers.... There is an element of trust that they're teaching correct information.

Yet the knowledge is all verifiable by checking it, I'd never trust blindly that what I've been taught is correct without further assessment.

We believe our teachers, not believe in them; yet some people do seem to believe in them.

By "believe" you seem to be implying belief that Jesus is the son of God.

Not only that one aspect; yet believing in him in general...

Like many seem to think when they say, 'they believe in someone', without any understanding of what they taught, that is all that is required to prove they believe.

To say that you follow the teachings of a religious Teacher, but you have no regard for the Teacher himself, constitutes hypocrisy.

Not said 'no regard'; saying you don't need to believe in someone, to follow what they're teaching.

Believing what they're saying is a different matter.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On thinking about this question, found that yes i would believe in someone, if i was doing any task that was dangerous with them....

So if i was going to war, i would want to believe in the leader, or mountain climbing with someone, i would need to believe in them as a person.

 

[Sundance]

Not said 'no regard'; saying you don't need to believe in someone, to follow what they're teaching.

Believing what they're saying is a different matter.

Their teachings are what they're saying. Still, the point I made stands: to say that you follow the teachings of this Teacher or that, but to not believe in the Teachers themselves constitutes hypocrisy and creates unnecessary confusion. The two are inseparable.

 

[sun rise]

If I go to a doctor and the doctor gives me advice, I can either believe that the doctor knows what she or he is talking about or try to learn enough medicine to know whether or not the doc's advice might be ok or not. And even then I've seen medical advice go from 'avoid' to 'ok' and sometimes back again.

This does not apply to very general advice defined in the OP such as "try to be more loving" and so forth. But to me it applies strongly when it comes to details.

 

[FearGod]

For me having read lots of religions, don't see the necessity to believe in the messenger; yet their message, and if it adds up logically within all the other knowledge.

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

Believing the message means believing the messenger..
IOW why to believe the message if not believing that it was delivered by the messenger.

 

[Acim]

For me having read lots of religions, don't see the necessity to believe in the messenger; yet their message, and if it adds up logically within all the other knowledge.

Yet having just been told you have to believe in Yeshua to accept his teachings, found that strange, and wondering how many other people feel you have to believe in someone, to believe in what they've had to say.

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

Read this thread earlier, and wanted to respond, but chose not to (then). Read another thread where I think this got started and decided to come back to this for response. Essentially going with what I was going to state earlier.

To me, part of any message that I may follow has me playing some role as 'messenger.' This can be as simple as noting that it is foremost up to me to interpret that message and what it means to me. How shall I apply it? How shall I make it work for me?

But I do think what I'm conveying is a bit deeper than that. And while I could present wall of text that would walk through this, I'll just cut to the chase in saying that the message I see, in a very real sense, originated from Me (intersubjective me). While that may be challenging, perhaps impossible to prove in a linear way, I do think the first explanation does help to see how I play role as 'messenger' in all messages I receive. The latter one makes sense to me, and is something I've contemplated (in a wall of text fashion) several times to realize how that actually is working, with all messages. Perhaps particularly with messages where I claim "this is not a message I will follow."

I say all this because the belief in 'other messengers' does usually convey something about whether they are inherently trustworthy, reliable, credible - and thus if the message is even worth consideration. Yet, I truly do believe that same process is at work with own self as messenger. However, enormous levels of forgiveness are given to that messenger (own self) that may otherwise be scapegoated to what is perceived as 'external messenger' and their 'observed weaknesses' (rationale for not being trustworthy).

I also say this because with spiritual messages (particularly), the one receiving the message isn't exactly clear to own self - Who That Is. Yet, self definition and/or self awareness that at least pretends to know own self is ongoing and will, in my experience, at least assert high confidence in "knowing who I am." Along with knowing what I like, don't like, what works for me, what doesn't.

If we are in fact God / God's / gods and yet are in a state currently where we assert our existence as not God / not God's / nothing like gods, and messages come to us saying "ye are Gods" then plausible we disbelieve that regardless of who the messenger is - even if it were (technically) God.

That is about as direct as I can be with what I'm getting at. But I find it is plausibly similar 'pattern' or 'rationale' at work with not only all spiritual messages, but really any conceivable message. If willing to entertain self as 'that which is being spoken about,' then likely willing to follow message, or at least consider what following it could mean (for own self). If not willing to consider that first, then it is inducing separation - their messages vs. our messages. Us and them. It's weird how consistently all of 'their' messages show up as irrational, illogical and inherently untrustworthy.

Identifying messages with external messenger is easy to do in this existence. Considered good scholarly practice to do so. But suggesting that there needs to be (full) acceptance of that messenger when there is plausibly not full acceptance of own self is challenging to understand why such a requirement would be in place.

For me, over indulging in traits about messengers shows up routinely as either basis for some ad hominem attack that is either present or forthcoming, or is basis for some form of idolatry. Or put another way, basis for saying "that messenger is nothing like me."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I actually follow FearGod's line of reasoning.

Believing the message means believing the messenger..

IOW why to believe the message if not believing that it was delivered by the messenger.

Wizanda. If you trust the message and assess it to accuracy, why would't you believe in the teacher? Is the teacher isolated from you more than the knowledge he gives? Does it make you feel like you're idolizing the teacher by believing in him? If so, to me, I wouldn't think so. It's more you are respecting the teacher (or elder) in a manner reflected of his knowledge or message he gave you. He is a reflection of his message.

For example, in the Bible, Christ says He is the Word. So, (case in point only), when one believes in the Bible, the message, they believe in Christ. The two are inseparable. Same as The Dharma. The Buddha doesn't separate himself from his Dharma. So when you believe in The Dharma, you believe in enlightenment and that is of The Buddha.

and so forth...

Once you separate the teacher from the message, what value does the message have but what you give it rather than the person who gave it? That, and do you think it's respectively to find the definition of the message opposed to what the messenger taught or is it alright to redefine the message because the messenger is unattached from his message?

We believe our teachers, not believe in them; yet some people do seem to believe in them.

What is the difference?

Yet the knowledge is all verifiable by checking it, I'd never trust blindly that what I've been taught is correct without further assessment.

I can see that. Do you put some value In the person who gave the message? (Kind of like eating your parent's dinner but not thanking your parent)

Not sure I've ever believed in one of my teachers.... There is an element of trust that they're teaching correct information.

How strong is your trust if you may not have believed in your teachers? Once you find the teachings are correct, why not believe in the person who gave it? (Once you define "believe in" vs "believe"?

 

[LuisDantas]

Also where do you think that stems from, what causes some people to need some object to believe in; rather than their statements being more important to qualifying if you believe them?

Pretty good and relevant question.

I have a vague feeling that people have a natural tendency to want validation from other people with faces and names. It is not even particularly religious a thing. See for instance how often people mention the Founding Fathers of the USA, wondering what they would say about subject matters entirely outside their scope.