Unless I'm in or at a formal debate between Christian apologists and atheists I offer my beliefs and their reasons but don't feel (or get) called on to provide scientific proof of any facet of the Christian tenets in which I park my trust.

I understand that such discussions will inevitably arise here but surely there can be times when believers don't have to be called up to the front of the class just for catching the eye of teacher.

It's about belief. Not (necessarily) known fact. In fact, the Bible says not to test God or ask for proof. It's all about faith. Faith is "...the substance of things hoped for" (Hebrews 11:1 KVJ).

So, as Christians we have belief, faith, hope.

That's the way I learned it, anyway.


Scriptures re BELIEF:

“Now the God of HOPE fill you with all joy and peace in BELIEVING, that ye may abound in HOPE, through the power of the Holy Ghost.”
Romans 15:13 (KJV)

“By whom also we have access by FAITH into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in HOPE of the glory of God.”
Romans 5:2 (KJV)

“…be ready always to give an ANSWER to every man that asketh you a reason of the HOPE that is in you…”
1 Peter 3:15

(NB: This is not a REASON as in FACT but rather an answer for the HOPE - that is, the reason we believe, and/or hope, and/or have faith).


Definitions of BELIEF:

- A feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true

- Something believed; especially a tenet or body of tenets held by a group

(Merriam-Webster online dictionary)


- An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: ‘his belief in extraterrestrial life’

- Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion

- A religious conviction; ‘Christian beliefs’

(Oxford Dictionaries online)



This is a beautiful thread, posted by Twinker, where people share their “beliefs”, while respecting those of others (by not clamouring for something more than each poster has already written).

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1516606,1516606#msg-1516606


Of course, it’s a thread about grief, so people have been naturally respectful, which is always appreciated by the posters most closely affected. Because of the subject matter, I did not take excerpts from these posts in order to give an example or make a point. It doesn’t feel right to use people’s thoughts and feelings that way for a purpose different from the intended one.

But I wanted to offer the thread as an example of another way of exchanging ideas and thoughts that is quiet enough to perhaps pass by largely unnoticed. But maybe you will see how meaningful these types of threads/posts can be to a large body of RfM posters, sharing common experiences of life, as we do, no matter our "beliefs". In fact, the grief thread illustrates how we can take comfort (recovery?) from others despite not believing the same way.


Sometimes it’s therapeutic to say what you feel or think or believe without getting pounced on. Hopefully, not every thread or encounter has to be a debate. I, for one, get so tired...


On that same thread Twinker also posted these thoughts of Ann Druyan, wife of Carl Sagan, astrophysicist:

“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me - it still sometimes happens - and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions.

"The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous - not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . .

"That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”
―Ann Druyan


It’s relaxing and therapeutic for me to read such thoughts by various people, including here from our RfM family, whether they reflect my own beliefs or not. Surely, whatever you “believe”, the thought that a loving couple “…found each other in the cosmos” is beautiful. And finding each other in “the vastness of space and the immensity of time” is sheer poetry to my ears and heart. Especially as I’ve often thought that space is too vast and time so immense that my (presumed) beloved and I have missed being “beneficiaries of chance”. But that indeed is a story for another day and so at this time peripheral to my points about belief and hope and tolerance and love.

There is a poem that I knew as a teen that I have never been able to find again (obviously I don't recall the title or author). One of the lines was "little children, you were never made to scratch each other's eyes". I have always remembered that and it fits in with my personal philosophy (on most days).


Pardon my sentimentality if you can. I watched an exceedingly sad TV drama last night that included flashbacks to WWII. I am still not over the resultant melancholy. And yet I wouldn’t have missed it. The exceptionally attractive male lead put in a most noteworthy performance. (Again, another peripheral detour).

So I’ll finish up now.

But, you know what I’m saying. I BELIEVE so. I HOPE so. But I don’t KNOW so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 06:04PM by Nightingale.

Sounds like something they would love to use.

If you don't need proof, I have some ocean front property I would let you have for cheep.

What is so wrong with just saying "I don't know"? Believing in things you do not know are true because you hope they are true gets you into cults.

What is wrong with "I don't know that it is true, the evidence is not at all compelling, there is no mosaic, so I see no reason to believe?" Isn't that better than "I want TSCC to be true so I will believe it is true"?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 07:19PM by MJ.

>> Believing in things you do not know are true because you hope they are true <<

Like believing that integrity will net better results than lack of integrity?

That’s an act of faith, at least in the beginning. It’s a long road before you see how others who lack integrity always get their comeuppance, how over time they always trip themselves up. To set out on the road of the lesser travelled path of integrity holds no guarantee of a better way, not when the liars and cheaters around you seem to be rolling in their spoils. It’s an act of faith, with no certainty you aren’t just being a goody-two shoes loser. Faith has its place. And I’ve never bought any bum properties yet, quite the opposite. You do have to be careful what things you place your faith in though, I’ll give you that. Discernment.

But I do not believe that integrity will net better results. There are plenty of people that have less integrity than I that have had better results than me.

I practice integrity because, for me, it is the right thing to do. As a general rule, I have found that integrity does make me feel better about myself, but that is based on evidence, not faith. I practice integrity even when I want to believe that not doing so would produce better results.

I do the right thing even if it means I get worse results.

By telling me integrity is about results you, you have told me that you could likely be bought off if it was shown that not practicing integrity would get you better "results". Therefor, I would not trust you or your integrity.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/23/2015 08:43PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
----------------------------------------------------
> If you don't need proof, I have some ocean front
> property I would let you have for cheep.

In terms of not "needing" proof, I didn't anywhere indicate that that is my modus operandi for all of life. Of course in non-religious dealings if proof is required proof is what I seek.

> What is so wrong with just saying "I don't know"?

I thought that is what I *did* say. Sorry if it wasn't clear. I don't know. I never did know. I likely will not know on this earth. Loudly demanding "proof" for someone's "beliefs", which by definition are not necessarily, or even likely, facts will never produce the results the non-believer wants - facts - because beliefs, by definition, are not facts. It's not as if believers have hold of facts that they have discovered or uncovered but are refusing to share. It's not as if unrelenting demands from non-believers will eventually lead to believers saying OK here's the proof. If they had it, they'd share it. In fact, some do, or try to, i.e., biblical archaeologists and/or scholars who uncover something in antiquity that they consider proof of the existence and even divinity of Jesus. But that doesn't mean all Christians take it at face value. Examples include the Shroud of Turin, Temple Mount, Dead Sea Scrolls. What some Christians see in these things as proof, others do not.

MJ, of note is that I am referring to non-LDS Christianity and that was the focus of my post. So, the fragment of my comments that you suggest I send to the GAs doesn't mean much to me, no offence. I am saying that to most Christian people their belief is not dependent on proof that would be considered objective evidence to a demanding court of law. Or at least, those with whom I have come into contact, which to me as an individual is quite a few, as it happens. (Since young teenage years I moved around a lot seeking a denominational fit for myself).


> Believing in things you do not know are true
> because you hope they are true gets you into
> cults.

Perhaps. But also into mainstream denominations where it seems reasonable to the vast majority that we have faith, we believe, we hope.


> What is wrong with "I don't know that it is true,
> the evidence is not at all compelling, there is no
> mosaic, so I see no reason to believe?" Isn't that
> better than "I want TSCC to be true so I will
> believe it is true"?

Again, just as an aside, I will mention that I wasn't thinking of the Mormon Church when I wrote my piece. I was speaking from the point of view of a mainstream Christian.

I, for one, don't see anything wrong with saying that I don't know it's true. I don't. And I've said it many times. To a standard of scientific certainty, with which I am familiar, I Do Not Know. Heck, even to a standard of "more likely than not" I Do Not Know.

It is a basic tenet of Christian faith that we believe, we hope, not that we know and we expect. It is even a point of worship, at least in my circles, because it is a well known and well regarded precept. We offer our belief. We express our hope. It is a religious ritual or ideal or way of being for us.

I am familiar with the refrain in the Mormon Church by many of its members that they want it to be true so they will believe that it is true. Who wouldn't want to think of an ideal eternal life with their loved ones? Would Carl Sagan's wife not want to see him again if it were possible? (See her article given in the OP up top). My impression from many Mormons I knew, including young missionaries, but most especially from reading this board for over a decade, is that many of those who approach Mormonism this way - I want the church to be true so I will believe it is true - already have serious doubts and/or other issues and so they are trying to find a way to hang on in there, often by their fingernails. This is not at all the same way in which mainstream Christians approach their faith and belief and hope. Perhaps the difference is due to the fact that they are not tightly welded to their forebears' faith, not seeing a way out without severing family and friendship bonds, the way we know it often is in Mormonism due to their generational belief system.

So, yeah, nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", which I did, didn't I? There may come a day when I want a closer examination and do look for scientific proof. For now, I rest easy, rest being the operative word. So many years of looking for religious "truth". Now I'm in holding mode. That's the best I can offer either "side" in this Great Debate.

"It is a basic tenet of Christian faith that we believe, we hope, not that we know and we expect."

Yes, but as Mark Twain wrote so succinctly, "Faith is believing something you know ain't true."

I hate to disagree with Mr. Twain but...

"I hate to disagree with Mr. Twain but..."

Well, true believing Mormons would disagree with Twain too, but that doesn't make their faith valid, either.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I hate to disagree with Mr. Twain but..."
>
> Well, true believing Mormons would disagree with
> Twain too, but that doesn't make their faith
> valid, either.

I'm not banking on the disagreement to prove the validity of my faith.

It's hard for me to believe that multitudes of people really think that Christians inwardly know it's not true but still pretend to believe.

This is going to sound like a shot at the Mormons from a mainstream Christian, which I know even exmos heartily dislike, but it's many Mormons, it seems from reading accounts here, who pretend to believe, who accept that Lying for the Lord is a righteous practice, who feel they have to keep up appearances more than they value their integrity or even, in all too many cases, potentially their children's futures.

This observation doesn't mean that Christians are necessarily "better than" Mormons but perhaps just that the environments and culture and therefeore mindsets are different, which leads some in one direction and the others to a different place.

I don't know of a single Christian who felt they had to pretend to believe. If they didn't, they just, uh, didn't. Maybe there's a recovery board for mainstream Christians that I haven't come across. But going from my life experience of getting to know church members in many different groups and numerous church leaders (pastors, ministers, priests etc) and being a lay counsellor for church and secular groups and generally studying religion for many years, I think it's safe to say that the Lying for the Lord thing is uncommon and perhaps somewhat peculiar to Mormons. Unfortunately for them.

So, yes, I disagree with Mark Twain. Not all Christians, or even most, KNOW their faith is a "lie". Certainly not one that originates from themselves.

Meanwhile, I don't think I've said yet, randyj, that it's nice to see you around. I respect the knowledge you bring to the discussions of Mormonism.

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> --
> > If you don't need proof, I have some ocean
> front
> > property I would let you have for cheep.
>
> In terms of not "needing" proof, I didn't anywhere
> indicate that that is my modus operandi for all of
> life. Of course in non-religious dealings if proof
> is required proof is what I seek.

What valid reason do you have for eliminating religion? I would think the lessons learned from Mormonism should show the value of looking for proof in regard to religion. Oh, that's right you dismiss the lessons that can be learned from Mormonism about believing because you hope your non-Mormon version of Christianity is true. Does it help you hold onto your beliefs to do this? Do you need to dismiss the lessons learned from the LDS to continue the hope your version of Christianity to be true?

>
> > What is so wrong with just saying "I don't
> know"?
>
> I thought that is what I *did* say.

No, you said much more than just "I do not know" you said "I BELIEVE so" Notice that I said "just saying..." without adding the bits about belief that you added here:

"But, you know what I’m saying. I BELIEVE so. I HOPE so. But I don’t KNOW so." Sorry, that is not the same as what I am talking about.

> Sorry if it
> wasn't clear. I don't know. I never did know. I
> likely will not know on this earth. Loudly
> demanding "proof" for someone's "beliefs", which
> by definition are not necessarily, or even likely,
> facts will never produce the results the
> non-believer wants - facts - because beliefs, by
> definition, are not facts. It's not as if
> believers have hold of facts that they have
> discovered or uncovered but are refusing to share.
> It's not as if unrelenting demands from
> non-believers will eventually lead to believers
> saying OK here's the proof. If they had it, they'd
> share it. In fact, some do, or try to, i.e.,
> biblical archaeologists and/or scholars who
> uncover something in antiquity that they consider
> proof of the existence and even divinity of Jesus.
> But that doesn't mean all Christians take it at
> face value. Examples include the Shroud of Turin,
> Temple Mount, Dead Sea Scrolls. What some
> Christians see in these things as proof, others do
> not.
>
> MJ, of note is that I am referring to non-LDS
> Christianity and that was the focus of my post.

Ah, so you are talking about Wesbough Baptist Church, Ted Haggert, Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple, Pat Robertson's view of Christianity, Jehovah Whiteness,

>
>
> > Believing in things you do not know are true
> > because you hope they are true gets you into
> > cults.
>
> Perhaps. But also into mainstream denominations

OMG, now you are even qualifying it even more, now its "mainstream denomination", does that include the anti-gay Baptist churches? How about the ant-gay evangelical churches? How much Christianity do you have to deny to get your your one true version of Christianity? Do hope the anti-gay version of Christianity, which pretty much includes all the mainstream Christianity, is true?

Hoping it is true is YOUR claim that you want. Do you hope the anti-gay mainstream Christian values are true or is that just another Christian value that you have to deny to hold on to your hope?


> where it seems reasonable to the vast majority
> that we have faith, we believe, we hope.

And now "faith" is limited to the vast majority? Faith is up for a vote?

>
>
> > What is wrong with "I don't know that it is
> true,
> > the evidence is not at all compelling, there is
> no
> > mosaic, so I see no reason to believe?" Isn't
> that
> > better than "I want TSCC to be true so I will
> > believe it is true"?
>
> Again, just as an aside, I will mention that I
> wasn't thinking of the Mormon Church when I wrote
> my piece. I was speaking from the point of view of
> a mainstream Christian.

Like the Anti-gay Baptist, evangelical and catholic (you know, the mainstream) Churches?

>
> I, for one, don't see anything wrong with saying
> that I don't know it's true. I don't. And I've
> said it many times. To a standard of scientific
> certainty, with which I am familiar, I Do Not
> Know. Heck, even to a standard of "more likely
> than not" I Do Not Know.

I am not talking about your saying you do not know, I am talking about your claim "I BELIEVE so. I HOPE so." Do you BELIEVE and HOPE the first half of the CHRISTIAN Bible is true? Or do you only believe what you think is moral and dismiss all the parts you believe IMMORAL? Is that what you believe?

>
> It is a basic tenet of Christian faith that we
> believe, we hope, not that we know and we expect.

Really? then you do not expect to get into heaven by following Christ? That is what your bible claims. And what is this "we" stuff? Are you claiming that you speak for all Christians?

> It is even a point of worship, at least in my
> circles,

OMG, now it is limited to YOUR Circles? That leaves out almost all of Christianity! Are you really dismissing almost ALL of Christianity? Isn't that a bit like saying your beliefs are the one true Christian belief?

> because it is a well known and well
> regarded precept. We offer our belief. We express
> our hope. It is a religious ritual or ideal or way
> of being for us.

Have you read the Christian Bible, ALL the Christian Bible and how it describes your God? Yeah, you better hope your god is not the god is described in the OT. But that is

Oh, and I hope you raised your family the way Jesus said he wanted:

Mathew 10 34-37? If not how can you claim to be Christian if ou do not follow what Christ says? Is that what you WANT to BELIEVE? Is that what you HOPE for?

Is your belief as described in the HOLY CHRISTIAN BIBLE or is it something else that is justified by finding what you already believe in the Bible and leave the rest?


>
> So, yeah, nothing wrong with saying "I don't
> know", which I did, didn't I? There may come a day
> when I want a closer examination and do look for
> scientific proof. For now, I rest easy, rest being
> the operative word. So many years of looking for
> religious "truth". Now I'm in holding mode. That's
> the best I can offer either "side" in this Great
> Debate.

As I stated you said MORE than "I do not know".

Believing in Christianity because you hope it is true is to believe in the OT, you are describing a hope that the parts you like are true, not that Christianity is true.

The amount that you have to qualify your statements and the amount of religion, including Christianity, to make your point makes a mockery of what you are trying to say. Dispute your attempt to distance what you say from the LDS, an LDS person could say the EXACT SAME THING ABOUT THE LDS. In doing so, it would have the same flaws as you applying it to your very limited version of Christianity.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2015 12:43AM by MJ.

"Jehovah Whiteness"

That's inadvertently funny.

The only time I challenge believers to provide evidence is when they make "truth" claims. I treat all claims, religious or not, the same way -- worthless until and if evidence is given to show them correct.

I would ask you, though -- why is it "about belief?"
Shouldn't things claimed to be facts be demonstrable by evidence?
Isn't it possible that the religious insistence that it be "about belief" simply a dodge...because there isn't any evidence to back up the claims?

Just something to think about.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only time I challenge believers to provide
> evidence is when they make "truth" claims.

That seems reasonable to me, iichtk (I saw someone abbreviate your board name that way the other day and I thought it was clever so now I'm going to do it too).


> I treat all claims, religious or not, the same way
> -- worthless until and if evidence is given to
> show them correct.

That seems a reasonable perspective to me.


> I would ask you, though -- why is it "about
> belief?"

What I should have made more clear is that this is the way I learned Christianity. I don't remember anyone saying this or that is fact and here is the scientific evidence. More, it was like here is what we believe (and/or "hope", as in Romans' scriptures cited above). My understanding of each church group that I tried along the way was that you (1) learned the basic tenets of that denomination, (2) decided whether you believed the *basics*, and if so (3) worshipped with that group accordingly. Most of my church experiences ended up being on the more fundamentalist end of the scale (which I didn't really understand at the time). Perhaps this is why this take on the Christian belief system was really pressed upon me. I didn't even realize (and yes, I know I sound like a dope) that it was possible to be a member or to attend if you didn't believe the founding and major precepts of the church you had selected. I mean, I thought it was a requirement but also I felt why would you want to hang out there if you didn't accept what they were about. So, for these reasons and more, I learned that "it's about belief" (not fact) and that got cemented in between my ears.


> Shouldn't things claimed to be facts be
> demonstrable by evidence?

Yes. If I understand what you mean by fact. If I said the Shroud of Turin is literally the face of Jesus Christ, I would expect you to question how I know this for a fact. (Sorry for choosing a Catholic example when I am decidedly Protestant but it is one that comes readily to mind).

Someone wrote yesterday I think it was (Stray Mutt or someone on his thread?) that *to a Christian* this or that IS a FACT, so at that point we then do get into a frenzy of fact checking and vigourous debate. It is a fact (heh) that even I, a somewhat skeptical Christian all along (not having been born into any particular religious denom and so not being inculcated beyond reach) have accepted and do accept some things "by faith", which is what I learned you are called upon to do. And, I guess the way the human brain works, once you have accepted something as fact it is hard to let it go.

When it comes to belief in God, once I accepted it (I don't know about anyone else) (and I always did believe it, from young childhood - it was just kind of the accepted thing in my community, although not formally taught by parents) then I never once revisited the idea looking for "fact". In fact, when I first came to RfM, after having been a JW as a teen and young adult, a BAC for a few years after that, and then a Mormon, and then back to being BAC (not that I ever left it in my being but bodily I did during the Mormon Interlude) I could not even conceptualize the idea of being atheist. A very kind and patient atheist poster helped me figure it out. But not even being able to comprehend the idea of no belief in God taught me some great lessons.


> Isn't it possible that the religious insistence
> that it be "about belief" simply a dodge...because
> there isn't any evidence to back up the claims?

I don't think so (of course, I would say that, wouldn't I?). That seems a somewhat cynical and inaccurate way to look at it (no offence). I don't really think that people believe while secretly knowing or comprehending that there is no evidence. Again, they believe there *is* evidence.

> Just something to think about.

I appreciate that.

I have obtained evidence of what I believe in: reincarnation and past lives, power of meditation/prayer, spirit guides, Spirit world, God, etc. However, you will not accept my evidence! There are hundreds of books on these subjects in a library but you won't accept those either. I really don't care.

I agree the quality of the evidence is important but you have none versus believers like me have a lot. Even though I have evidence of everything I believe in I am not 100% confident or 100% satisfied and continue to seek additional experiences.

The Ann Druyan remembrance is precious.

Much thanks for that, Nightie.

Have I told you lately that I love you?

Your post touched me deeply as another who loves and worships Jesus. Thanks for moving me this evening.

so are people who love and worship jesus better than those who do not ?

.....the Mormon Jesus, or the "real" Jesus? :-)

I didn't say anyone is better, if you're asking me, Dave.

Some are Christians. Many are not. Everybody's choice. Not my argument.

This might not be proof, but this is what it is about:

Creating a Jesus, someone who is personally mostly absentee from the world scene and some one who in their super critical role of divine savior is COMPLETELY UNKNOWN to most of all humanity that has existed, as some sort of magical vicarious remedy for everybody's personal sins, would be a move of folly for any god.
(Joe Smith and his MORmONISM even attempted to remedy this GLARING shortfall to a certain extent, by claiming that all critical Jesus ministered on the American continent very briefly ...before completely disappearing..... which sounds so much like " of course the gold plates exist, but we can not inspect them as they are being stored in heaven" )


However, creating a Jesus god to manipulate certain select people within the domain of a certain political empire, pushing the manipulative myth for as much mileage as possible, and hey! if the myth manages to thrive and even persists for over 2000 years, that would be a great trick ! Creating a Jesus god for political manipulation, that would be typical political antics of a potent manipulative political regime 2000 years ago.


Until all ultra critical and absolutely essential Jesus manages to show up again in the wake of his 2000 year and counting absence, its very hard to take this absentee addicted savior of the world very seriously, among the other very highly questionable aspects of his job performance. And it is just as hard to take seriously the people who insist on believing in the Jesus myth.

I challenge you to read some Ian Stevenson, Hemendra Banerjee, and Carol Bowman. I base what most would consider religious beliefs on evidence. It may not be "proof" but it is much more solid than faith.

Why does the bible demand proof for pagan gods, but declares it a sin to ask for proof of the Jewish one? Why the double standard? If god is real, then there should be proof. If he is a myth, than he shall fail the test to provide proof just the same as all the other false gods. It's not a matter of you not needing proof, it's that if there is no proof, then there can be no god.

It's been said that you can't prove a negative, but you can disprove specific claims. There are many specific claims in the bible about god and his nature that are testable. If the god of the bible exists, and the stories told of him are true, then the world would be covered in geological fingerprints that would point firmly to his existence. Not only do this fingerprints not exist, but there are numerous real fingerprints that contradict the stories.

The evangelicals are wrong about so many things, but there is one thing they get right. If god is real, then his book is real, which means all that silly stuff in the bible would have really happened. It didn't. Therefore, no god. The end. We can all go home now.

Thank you Nightingale for sharing ;-)

Mormonism is so sad and twisted in it's doctrines! It has used and hurt too many people!

Most "believers" throw out evidence to and speak of truth, until their evidence is proven bogus, and then suddenly they proclaim that evidence isn't necessary.

Dishonest, actually.

If science or the courtroom acted this way it would be declared a fraud by all, but in religion it is somehow okay.