I think both things are going on, not either/or. Religions involve both absolute truth that "God" represents, and relative expression per group based on conformity.
In practice, the RELIGIONS themselves are used as cultural languages among a like community, so this is to help establish a "common language" and law that peers agree to live by.
In spirit, the CONTENT in religions all point toward universal laws that "God" represents. So it is both.
I actually by calling it "social" made his point less critical as "conformity" has a connotation of being motivated by a fear of being different while "social" doesn't. He didn't say conformity was a factor, he didn't even say it was both, he said it was the primary factor. That's not true with the Christians I know, the religion is very important to them. Which is why I suggested and suggest if he doesn't like them and doesn't understand them, he should probably not claim to know what motivates them. I said the same about them with him.
Thanks Kaz You clearly have more experience interacting and understanding this bias.
Since this is my first thread where we shared in greater depth, the most I could see was him pushing his own conformity in sticking to the topic and the psychological terms.
1. That could be one bias, because he insists on conformity he assumes this of others.
2. Because he does not see how any knowledge/research of 'spiritual healing' affects the data and research being "depended on for proof" of course, he does not know what is missing and how much impact that has on conclusions being made, even by professionals.
3. Similarly if he hasn't seen this concept work through natural laws and science, of course he's not going to get the same concept when it's 'dressed up' in religious symbolism either.
Kaz I can hardly expect anyone to understand the concepts before they see proof.
The top practictioners I recommend EACH had to "see and experience physical proof of this process FIRSTHAND" before they believed it, and then understood it AFTERWARD as natural. At first, it doesn't seem real or applicable! The mind cannot visualize in advance.
If you can please forgive the fact he doesn't have the understanding or perspective from that viewpoint, but is starting from what he can relate to, that's enough to explore.
This is his thread, can we start with wherever he asks to focus on and work from there?
I did not mean to jump on your comments either, and I apologize for any confusion Kaz.
The "conformity" I support is everyone agreeing to hear and respect each other's contributions, especially when correcting or clarifying. The views and beliefs remain diverse or conflicting, while interaction between us is unifying where our points align.
I call it "alignment" where it's clear we remain different and just find points of intersection and agreement, which is not the same as forcing conformity on people like making all believe the same.
Until someone actually goes through this process, how can they understand "aligning" what we each agree is true, and it isn't being pushed like "religious conformity for fear" or ulterior motives?