Posts

Why Christians Should Vote to Legalize Same Sex Marriage

For the purpose of this article I am going to adopt a distinctly conservative Christian perspective and write for a distinctly conservative Christian audience.  I want to put forth the idea that even if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong, a sin even, you should still vote for its legalization.

Freedom vs. License

"Freedom and fear are at war. Freedom is not, "being able to do whatever you want to do." That is license. If you have license, rather than authentic freedom, your house is built on sand and will collapse. Authentic freedom is the power to do what we ought to do; the power to choose the good, the true, and the beautiful. That will vanquish fear every time. If your concept of freedom is really license, fear will come out on top every time. Freedom has to be united with truth. There is no freedom outside of the truth: No authentic human freedom outside of the truth. "If you are truly my disciples, you will abide in my word. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." True freedom is rooted in God."

- Fr. John Corapi

As Fr. Corapi says, Freedom is not license, it is more along the lines of personal authenticity.  If God is both Truth and within you, then when you are acting the most authentically and genuinely, you are acting in God's will.  Interestingly enough, this does not mean we should forsake license, for license and Freedom are tightly intertwined.  If it weren't for license, we could not genuinely choose to do what is right, for we would do it automatically.  This is why God gave us free will.  He allows us to sin so that we might learn, grow, and come to the truth in a very personal and authentic way.  There can be no authenticity, and no Freedom, without license.

The opposite of Freedom is fear, and the opposite of license is restriction.  When a society implements restrictions on its citizens, it does not only prevent its citizens from acting authentically, it acts out of fear itself.  Even though our intentions are good, restricting the public to do only what is morally right harms everyone.  The people may choose the right thing, but for the wrong reasons.  They follow truth, but they do so disingenuously.  We are teaching them to act a certain way out of fear of the consequences.  And we ourselves, who put the policy in place, we are acting out of fear as well.  We are afraid that we can't trust people, and that if we don't exert some pressure on them, they won't choose the right thing.

When God looks at us, does He have these fears?  Well, His heart is probably breaking all the time, seeing us choose to bury our true selves and choose against His will.  But He does not intervene and force us to change our minds.  He honors His gift to us of free will, and He lets us make mistakes.  He does not act out of fear that He will lose us.  In fact, one of Jesus's most persistent messages was "Be not afraid."  Fear blinds us, keeps us from the truth.  And out of fear we impose God's will on the people in our society, when even God himself will not do that.

The Purpose of Law

Contrary to a lot of current thought, the purpose of Law is not to uphold or enforce morality.  Law is about enforcing the minimum standard of action necessary to be a functioning member of society.  It is about preservation of society, putting restrictions on license where necessary in order to prevent its citizens from harming each other.  Other than that, it should allow its citizens as much license as possible.  If you look at many of our current laws (against murder, theft, drinking and driving, etc), we make acts illegal when they harm someone or infringe on their rights against their will.

Morality calls us to a much higher standard than the Law. Christian morality is about rejecting sin in all its forms and transforming yourself inside and out to become more and more like Jesus Christ.  And, as I stated in the last section, we cannot force Christian morality on members of our society without denying them the chance to choose it freely.  That's what makes morality such a wonderful, lofty, and praiseworthy ideal.  It is not something you are forced to do, it is something you choose to do.

Given everything that has been said thus far, as Christians it is our duty to emulate God and allow people to sin, as long as that sin does not harm another person.  It may break our hearts to see people shun the truth, but we have to let them.  From the standpoint of the Law, we need to allow same sex marriage.  To vote against it is to act out of fear, and to thereby distance ourselves from God.

Calming Leftover Fears - Definitions

In order to get ourselves to a place where we are emotionally ready to permit same sex marriage on a political level, we need to address two major fears that plague our hearts.

The first is that by legalizing gay marriage, we would be corrupting an institution that God created.  I know this is a sensitive issue, and I will try my best to treat it fairly and gently.  We must admit that the word marriage is full of different meanings on different levels.  Traditionally, marriage has not always been meant as a spiritual union in the eyes of God.  There has always been a social aspect as well.  Marriage has been used as a political tool to unite warring factions or countries.  It has been used in order to barter out a better life for your family line.  It has been used as a financial safety net.  Even today, people marry for all sorts of reasons.  They marry for money, for lust, or for social status.  Some people get married for love, but do not associate themselves with any religious tradition at all.

This does not in any way detract from the beauty and profundity of the Sacrament of marriage in its religious context.  It is as if we can talk about marriage on two levels.  There is the social/political level, and the spiritual/religious level.  The social/political level has changed many times over the centuries without affecting the spiritual/religious ideal of marriage.  And so it is today.  Allowing same sex marriage affects the social definition of marriage, not the religious one.  As a Christian, you do not have to recognize same sex marriages as being approved or sanctioned by God.  It is in the name of the State only.

If this proves to be too difficult of a place for us to reach, then perhaps we need to take another route.  Many have stated that they are just fine with civil unions, as long as gays aren't allowed to marry.  But what is a civil union other than the social/political level of marriage?  Although, if we insist on keeping the word marriage solely in its religious context, then we must be fair in how we treat it on a social/political level.  By this I mean taking the word marriage out of State hands entirely.  Everyone would get civil unions, and then if they chose to take the extra step of getting married, they can do so through their Church.

But it is imperative that we maintain equality between same sex couples and heterosexual couples.  When Jesus dealt with sinners, whores, and thieves, did he not treat them as equals?  Isn't that what allowed him to get through to them?

Calming Leftover Fears - The Children

The other major fear has to do with what our children will see and be taught with regards to homosexuality.  We do not like the idea that schools and/or the media will be telling our children that homosexuality is okay and perfectly acceptable.

Before we go into ways to ease this fear, let us explore for a bit the root of it.  When it comes to our children, we want nothing to corrupt them.  We want the best for them.  And because we are Christians, we want them to grow up with those same values, that they might find their way to God as well.  But this leads us to be fearful of letting anything "unclean" touch them.  We are afraid that the power of evil is too strong, too tempting, and that if our children are exposed, their weaker minds will be enveloped and there will be nothing we can do about it.

But children can smell our fear.  And they react in one of two major ways.  They either adopt the same fears, or they rebel against them and challenge them.  As we discussed earlier, fear is not truth.  Truth is Freedom.  Some children sense this on a deep level...that the actions we take are spawned from fear, and so they reject any truth that they might express.  Either we perpetuate the feeling of fear, or our children take their lives in a radically different direction in order to reject it.

There is a better way.  Do not be afraid to talk to your children.  Do not be afraid that they won't turn out how you want them to, or that their lives won't be as happy as the lives you imagine and want for them.  Trust God.  By working on your own inner state, you can better help them grow up in God's love. 

If you adopt the frame of mind discussed in this essay, talking to your children about same sex marriage is not as confusing as many, including the National Organization for Marriage, have made it out to be.  By showing your acceptance of it on a political level, you do not give off the same fear, and children are less likely to rebel.  You can then explain to your child what I explained in this essay, that marriage for Christians is something even more deep and spiritual and religious than society's definition.

Should your child still grow up and choose to marry someone of the same sex, the other thing that legalizing same sex marriage will do to help you is that it will drastically change the homosexual community.  With marriage and finding someone to love seen as the end goal of any life, even a homosexual one, your child will grow up seeing examples of gay men in loving, committed relationships.  They will see gay women caring for each other and their children.  If your child does end up to be homosexual, wouldn't you rather they choose this sort of life as opposed to one of promiscuity?

This brings me to another caveat to adopting a position free of fear.  We must maintain a sort of "detachment" from the outcome.  If your child does happen to be homosexual and to choose to marry someone of the same sex, you cannot take it personally.  It may break your heart, but to force your child to deny what he feels is truth makes you look fearful and your child will not respond.  To give your child a chance at Freedom, authenticity, and Truth...you must let him make his own choices.

Conclusion

In summary, the Christian life is about transforming ourselves and emulating Christ, who is God in human form.  In order to become like God we must follow Freedom, authenticity, and Truth...and we must lay aside fear.  It is difficult, and there is much resistance. The path is indeed narrow.  It is hard to give up what we think keeps us safe.  But to do so shows that we really do have Faith and Trust in God, that we are willing to let Him shape events and to adopt His perspective rather than merely our own.  In our own struggle towards Freedom, we must surrender our fears about the paths of others and strive, by example, to be a light to the world, should they choose to see it or not.

*As you may have guessed, I am by no means conservative.  I tried to adopt that perspective for the sake of the argument.

There's been a lot of talk about torture lately, with some people arguing that we should never torture based on our moral standards, and others saying that it is a necessary evil and must be kept up if we are to protect ourselves.

Ironically, it's the right, known for containing a majority of Christians, who are arguing for torture.

So here's my question: how can you claim to be both a Christian and a supporter of torture?

I just listened to a radio show from one of my friends on Facebook on the topic of Gnosticism and the Hymn of the Pearl.  I get a lot out of myth and the resulting analysis of them, and so this section of his talk was very interesting to me.

Basic story:

"The Hymn of the Pearl tells the story of a prince sent by his father, the grand King of Kings, down to Egypt to fetch “the one pearl which resides there near the ravenous dragon.” His Father promises him that once this is accomplished, he could “put(back) on that jewel-studded garment” which was made out of love” for him and would become a herald for the kingdom along with his “well-remembered brother.” Leaving his kingdom in the East, he arrives in Egypt and hurries “directly to the dragon and camps near his den.” In order “to guard against the Egyptians and against intercourse with their impurities,” he puts on their “style of dress” in order to go undercover as well as to shun any suspicion that he was a stranger in their land. As fate would have it, the Egyptians become aware that he is a stranger, form a plot to snare him and knock him into a slumber with their matter-laden food. With a taste he succumbs into forgetfulness, no longer remembering he was “a child of the king” and so becomes subservient to their king. Then he sinks “into deep sleep under the heaviness of their food.” Meanwhile, his parents recognize that he is suffering and also “suffer” over him. So the King of Kings sends a letter, exhorting him to “arise and become sober out of sleep,” since he had “fallen under the servile yoke.” He is instructed to “call to mind” his garment full of gold and his mission regarding the pearl. Heading back home toward the light, he encounters “a female being” that lifts him up and helps guide him on his return journey. Finally he is reunited with his beloved garment and “perceived in it” his “whole self as well.” From here he enters the royal realm of peace."

The basic explanation was that the Prince represents the soul.  It starts in the heavens, then is encased in bodily form in order to blend in while on its search for the pearl.  The soul then forgets its purpose, forgets that it even had another home.  Once a message from above comes to wake him up he is finally able to complete his mission and return to the fullness.

The interesting part of the talk comes in the discussion of what the pearl means.

"With this, the pearl can be isolated as “part of the divinity lost to darkness” which can only be reached if the prince retrieves it. In this sense both the prince and the pearl are the soul. He goes further in asserting that the “interchangeability of the subject and the object of the mission”(savior and soul/prince and pearl)”is the key to the true meaning of the poem and to Gnostic eschatology.”

Nice.  We are both searching and waiting to be found.  I love the subject/object ambiguity. :)

And then the meaning of the cloak:

"The pinnacle moment to understanding the cloak’s purpose is when the prince states that while they derived from “one and the same,” they were “partially divided: and then again” they “were one with a single form.” When he saw the garment, he saw in it his “whole self.” From this one may suppose that whatever the prince is so is the cloak and could even haphazardly guess that they are both soul. But they can be one form and yet fulfill different functions and even identities."

Awesome.  I just love the multi-faceted explanation.  The intricacies you can get through this sort of complicated myth and symbolism are what really excite me.

So, I'm having an interesting discussion with a friend on a message board.  He belongs to the Orthodox Church, believes that no one goes to Hell when they die, and thinks that Jesus' message was primarily about *this* life and not the next.  So far I agree.

Our discussion is centered around the events in Christ's life, and whether them actually taking place in the time line has any affect on the meaning derived from them.  I'm quite enjoying this discussion, so I'm going to paste some parts of it here for remembrance sake...and for anyone who wishes to continue it. :)

*****

So, it's important to you because it gives you a warm feeling that you're on the right path? lol, I don't mean it that harsh of course, but if it was important to the apostles, *why* was it important? Surely this seems to be a question worth exploring, right?

I guess I find so much meaning in the story that I'm not sure what affect its historicity would have on its impact?

I mean, say we had the bible, but the names were all changed...would it still have the same power? If it doesn't, is it a meaningful difference, or does it just have less power because it's not what we are used to? Or, say someone came up with undeniable proof that Jesus never existed at all, would that shake your faith?

I think it was important to them for a number of reasons, including validation of Jesus' claims, encouragement in their sorrow, hope that they share the same fate, and confidence that they could now risk their lives and do anything they dreamt of.

I see your point here. And I know for a great many people throughout history it has been somewhat of a security blanket that gives them courage and strengthens their faith. But, I guess, that's exactly my point. It's a huge comfort, and since when did Jesus tell us to seek comfort? Again, I'm not arguing that the story *wasn't* historically true, I just think that we tend to be way too attached to that aspect, and it can limit our understanding so that we miss some of the most profound and meaningful things in the story itself.

I guess I am just wary of attachment to particulars.

For me, even thinking that the story may be entirely myth, I still find incredible power in it. My life experience validates Jesus' claims. The concepts in the story give me encouragement in my sorrows and hope for my own resurrection (mainly in my life here, but sure after death too). It doesn't always give me the courage to risk everything and follow my dreams, because often my vision is clouded by fear. But when I am calm and centered, I see clearly and that courage comes to me in waves. I worry that a courage based on a particular historical event is a way to deny that fear. It's a subtle underlying aspect of human life, and it cannot be denied.

The only way to be rid of it is, as through Jesus' example, letting it in and not avoiding it. It's a subtle thing I'm talking about, how someone might push down a feeling of fear because of their unshattering faith in a particular event...versus understanding what that event tries to show us (regardless of whether it happened that way or not) and listening to that advice and being open and receptive...even to fear and suffering.

Let's not forget though that it was important to Jesus too. For some reason, it had to happen, he predicted that it would, and told his followers to look forward to it.

It did have to happen, in the story, because of what it means. Because of how it teaches us. It would make sense that Jesus would acknowledge that it has to happen, because part of his point is that even seeing something like this looming up ahead in our future, we must not be afraid, for there is nothing to fear. If you imagine Jesus' prediction as a literary device in the story of the resurrection, it makes a lot of sense. Not that it can't be real as well, but it seems that the meaning is there regardless.

But as to why it should be important historically, I guess I don't really have an answer right now, but it seems inseparable from the story, to me anyway. Perhaps they are pat Christian answers, but if it's just a story, and never happened, and the Son of God didn't exist, and the Incarnation didn't really happen, I'm forced ask what the point would even be then? Besides just trying to be a better person by modeling your life after a character in a story. And the Gospels, as well as the other NT writings, and the writings of those shortly thereafter, place great importance upon these events really happening.

Do you really think the Bible becomes empty and meaningless if these events didn't happen? Acknowledging that the events may not have taken place in real life does not take away from the profundity and the *truth* found in the story. This story puts into beautiful and precise terms what so many other stories try to get at...some with better success than others. It speaks directly to our hearts the way only stories can. And there are echoes of these truths in almost every story we write, in almost every life we live. But here we have it unclouded by the fear in our normal stories. Jesus is a character without fear (or rather, who does not act of fear), without sin, and the huge tragedy in his life puts God's lessons to us practically in neon lights.

It's so much more than just trying to be a better person. It's discovering the path to truth, to life. It's trusting in the process, even if it looks like it is leading you toward death...because the path to death is a path to rebirth. It teaches us that there is no need to fear, ever. And that love is a never ending spring; the more you pour out of yourself the more you have. It is about letting go.

Stories are meant to teach eternal truths in such a way that we can resonate with them on the deepest level. Christ's story is one of, if not the, most profound of all. I don't know about you, but when I talk about these things my heart fills with excitement and joy at the sheer *truth* of it all. It's incredible.

Question for you, what was Paul meaning when he said if Jesus didn't really die and rise again, our faith is in vain? If it's not important as an event that really happened, why do they all place so much importance upon it?

Well, I'm not a bible scholar, so I can't tell you what his original meaning was. I can only tell you what I gather from it. Why must Paul be talking about a concrete event? In the same passage he talks about the reflection between Christ and Adam. But you don't believe Adam existed. You have no attachment to the particulars in that story. Yet somehow what Paul says is true, isn't it? That what was introduced with Adam is now overcome by Christ. Is it an event that somehow canceled out a prior event? No, because the prior event never happened in real life. It was a myth. But the meaning of it is still strong...and the eternal aspect of the myth, the truth of it...is now reflected and expanded on in the story of Christ.

I don't think he's really talking about Christ being risen on a concrete level (though again, it may be concrete as well), but on a personal and existential level that goes much deeper. If Christ is not risen, if there is no rebirth after death, then your faith and your preaching are worthless. You do not fully believe in the meaning you preach. You do not truly have faith. You are still in sin because you are still in fear of death and suffering. And in your mind, those who are asleep (notice he doesn't say dead, interesting) have no hope of awakening, so why preach? I think he's showing how their point of view is reflective of an inner state of despair and fear, when it should be one of hope and life.

Anyway, just my perspective.

*****

"The free will we are endowed by our Creator is the very thing that defines our existence-- creation without free will is creation without love; ironically, it is love, and only love, that can create life, for all goodness rests in love. That which is not love is only for tearing down." -Amanda

If we approach life through love, then we are much more relaxed.  We do not grasp at things or at people.  We love them without wanting to possess them because we do not fear emptiness.  We have found that emptiness is a window through which we might view love, truth, and authenticity on the deepest level.  Love, it seems, is about letting go.  And this letting go does imply a will to let each and every creature or force behave as it is.

"This is what is meant of the Something More when I say it is "the individuality and unity of life."" -Amanda

You seem to be getting at something essential here.  Two components of God.  Individuality, unity.  Others have labeled them immanence and transcendence, or the Sophia and the Logos.  It is an ironic view of God, because it holds two seemingly opposite qualities together.  For me, this idea is absolutely essential to my concept of God. 

I understand your flirting with pantheism, because strict monotheism doesn't seem to give you the same impression of cohesiveness and unity.  It emphasizes God being set apart, transcendent.  While this feels true to you, it doesn't emphasize how present God feels. How he brings us together and exists in every level of his creation.

I also understand your hesitance to take on pantheism.  Christians have long looked down on it.  You do not want to lose the transcendent aspect of God.  But you don't have to. :)

I suggest you look into panentheism. It's monotheism and pantheism combined.  The ironic God.  Both immanent and transcendent.  And the fun part?  You can find traces of it (along with mysticism) in every single religion.  I believe it is a more accurate description of how God feels to us.

As far as the art and artist, I think God's presence goes deeper than that.  To me, God is the artist, but he is also the canvas, the paint, the will and the life of the art itself.  Once he has created, he lets it take on a life of its own, but it is not separate, not on the most fundamental level.  For though it does as it wills, it is made of the canvas and paint.  It is free and separate on one level, but it is made of God on another.  In every living thing exists a spark of God's presence.

And on the topic of free will...I actually think that the more you reveal this spark, the freer you are.  The more you let it become buried, the more ignorant you are of your true nature, and the more bound to separation you become.

So, paradoxically, I think that to be free *is* to be one with God.  To have your will freely join with his.  It is rather ironic that in order to become truly free, we do not start bound and have to separate ourselves, but the reverse.  The moment we are born we are introduced to separation, and our lives are a quest to find a way to rebind (re-lig  the root of the word religion) ourselves with the essential unity and become free.

All major religious traditions carry basically the same message, that is love, compassion and forgiveness the important thing is they should be part of our daily lives.

-Dalai Lama

Is it possible for a non-Christian to love like a Christian? From having a conversation with someone yesterday, I was told that because God came in the form of Jesus and died for the sins of Christians, that they are able to love selflessly. I'm sure there is more theology hoopla to go with this premise, but lets just consider this simple notion.

Selfless love, in this context, isn't being used as the type of love one might find in a relationship, although I'm sure this love can be found in relationships. But in this context, it was being used more as a love towards all people than a specific love towards a single person.

 In my conversation, I asked, after hearing his premise, "Can a non-Christian love like a Christian?" I thought the answer would be rather obvious, but his reply was "I don't know." You don't know? I then asked if he was inclined to say no, and he simply said, "No, I'm not." I suppose this is a better answer, but why didn't he simply say no to the question, "Can a non-Christian love like a Christian?" Isn't it obvious? Of course, one can. Are Buddhists not able to love selflessly? Are Muslims not able to love selflessly? Of course, they are. But do they? Do you? I agree that it is hard to love selflessly, but that doesn't mean that people can't. Nor does it mean one needs God to love selflessly. (The Dalai Lama is a perfect example of a non-Christian loving selflessly.)

I suppose I can see the theological reasoning behind such a belief, but I find it to be extremely irrational and unrealistic. Open your eyes: love is love, with or without God. This may be hard for Christians to understand because it seems to me most don't actually attempt to speak with others from different religious traditions or even learn about various traditions. But ignorance shouldn't be seen as an excuse. To have an accurate worldview, one must actually look at the world outside of one's perspective. Only then will the person actually have a true worldview.

There is a certain comfort in letting certain things in and excluding others from our view.  The same goes with people.  There's people who have God, and people who don't.  People who know what's up, and people who are idiots.  People who pay attention when they drive, and people who should never be let out on the road.  People who have truth, and people who have no grasp of it whatsoever.

This method of looking at others has it's comforts, has it's securities.  It is a means by which we can understand the world by translating it into what is approved and what is not.  It certainly makes life much more simple.  Here's what's on my list of approved things, ideas, and people, and I reject what's not on this list.

We all do this, to a certain extent.  And it makes sense.  We *are* trying to constantly simplify our experience to make it easier to handle.

But it's interesting what happens when you stop putting people and ideas in categories.  You start looking closer, you start seeing more.  Because you've stopped filtering things out.  The priest at the church Ben and I go to was leading us through a meditation, and she said for us to stop filtering, and to let everything in.  Do not exclude any sounds, feelings, thoughts...just let it all flow and observe it.  Then, you start to see deeper.

The same is true for people and ideas, I think.  When you stop trying to declare something as either bad or good and just witness it, you see deeper.  And seeing this way allows you to see the truth hidden in everything, because it frees you from your misconceptions and even your opinions.  It humbles you because you *have* to let go of the things that make you comfortable in order to let everything in, and in doing so, brings you closer to truth.

Compassion and love break down barriers.  They stop us from doing this categorization and from simplifying the world.  Love asks us to look at the whole, to see each person, each idea, each moment as valuable in some way.  There is no in group or out group.  There is only truth, and what it is buried underneath.

And when you see things this way, you approach conversations, people, ideas with an entirely different perspective.  You start to understand the subtle language of the heart, and how it is speaking even through people's so called intellectual ideas.  You start to see how someone's pure intuition or pure desires were led astray.  And instead of feeling contempt for their ignorance, you can feel nothing but compassion and love.  You see their soul buried under so much weight, and you long to free them. 

You are no longer distracted by the wrongness of what people say.  It seems petty to argue about it, almost tragic.  And it gives you patience and strength.  When you talk with someone it's more like a jazz improvisation...each of you contributing ideas and playing off one another to build something interesting that may open up both of your understandings.  You don't feel attached to (or the need to reject) any one concept or dogma because you sense the truth in all of them.  This gives you a freedom, a spontaneity, a creativity that you never had before.

And it is all in ceasing to seek comfort, and treating people and even their ideas and their words with compassion and love.  It's not always about simplification; often, it's about inclusion and integration.

Some quotes from Carl Jung that I really like.

"Show me a sane man and I will cure him for you."

"If one does not understand a person, one tends to regard him as a fool."

"I have treated many hundreds of patients. Among those in the second half of life - that is to say, over 35 - there has not been one whose problem in the last resort was not that of finding a religious outlook on life. "

"Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering."

"Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us, something is out of tune. "

"Your vision will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes."

In my experience, people hold to their opinions because on a very deep level, they sense truth in them.  It's an intuitive truth that they feel regardless of logical implications.  And this is why so often logic is not enough to sway a person, because what they have latched onto is not logical, it's intuitive. 

The thing is, they have *rightly* latched onto this deep truth within their view.  But what most people don't realize is that we build on top of these...or when we hear an idea we will eventually accept, we sense that seed of truth, and because of that we accept the entire idea.  Because we received them at the same time, this leads us to believe that every part of that idea is essential, and to let go of one detail would be to deny the entire truth, which we are not willing to do.

This picture offers us two useful pieces of advice when dealing with truth.

The first is on a personal level, when you are looking within yourself and deciding (or examining) what you believe.  Look for those seeds.  Probe deep into your views about life, about God, about science, about your personal relationships.  What is it that brought you to accept these views?  What little seed sprouted into the view you currently possess? 

This is more difficult that it may seem, because often we sense these truths on a subconscious level, and at the forefront of our brains cannot tell the difference between the seed and everything that has been added onto it.  This is not to say that the add on's are bad and should be removed.  It's only saying that you will understand yourself better if you know the deepest reasons you hold your beliefs.

The second insight this can give us comes when we are trying to engage others in debate.  Rather than attack the details of a particular set of beliefs, try looking deeper into the other person's view and find that seed of truth that keeps them holding fast.

If you can expose this seed to them, and it makes sense to them, suddenly they understand what is most important about their views.  If you then acknowledge the truth of that seed, and go on to say that such and such detail is different, you will have a better chance of changing their minds.

But again, this is very difficult.  You need extraordinary perception often much practice to discern what it is that is really important to a person.  Especially when it is so easy to pick at the logical inconsistencies within their view.  It's not easy and there is no sense of winning. Instead of seeing the other as an opponent, you see them more as a lock.  Only the right key will open them, and you must find it.

Just something I was thinking about today.  Does it make sense?  Would examples help?  It's hard to think of examples that wouldn't be too controversial for the point to be seen.