tentative
As I recall, Xunzian said something about community as it pertains to religion- that if you aren't using the word of a community to fall back on, then it's easy to miss mistakes in your reasoning, and hard to see past your own biases. I was trying to say that the same sort of concept applies to people that try to do the whole "Jesus" thing without the Bible or the Church. Jesus said a few things that would shock and possibly dismay someone who was assuming His message was nothing more than 'be nice to people'.
Depends. Bessy was specifically asking me if she could follow [i]Jesus[/i] without the Bible and the Church. Since the Bible and the Church are the only good sources of what Jesus said about anything, I should think the risks of not including them would be obvious. She pointed out that the Bible can be made to say anything. It can be made to say anything by people who have a vested interest in twisting it to their own agendas. Now, put those same people with those same agendas on their own with only 'what feels right' to them as their earmark, and naturally they aren't giong to be following Jesus at all. They're going to be following their own whim and [i]calling[/i] it Jesus.
Using our God-given rationality requires us to include other people. The fact that things can be [i]learned[/i] necessitates the existence of legitimate authority- in the form of people who have learned more than us.
Because of the importance of dialectic, and the fact that you only have a few more decades to get this stuff sorted out before you're dead. Second point first- if you didn't read philosophy, chances are you would [i]never ever[/i] think of existentialism even if you lived for 200 years. And even if you did, at around age 183 or so, think about how much further you could have gotten if only you'd ceded authority to Sartre long enough to read and consider his book a century previous? The same thing applies to religion. You're condemning yourself to what one person can get done in 70 years of constructive thought tops.
And now, the point about the dialectic. If all you have to go on is your own unaided understanding, then you have no ability to see the errors in you own reasoning. Involving others allows you to compare your idea to theirs, and that's the only way any real progress is made. As I said, since I believe religion and spirituality is something that[i] can be learned[/i], that means there are legitimate authorities exist on spiritual matters. The only way to properly understand what a legitimate authority is saying is to acknowledge them as an authority. If you view the words of an authority as no more weighty than your own opinions, then are aren't seeing things accurately, and your results will be skewed in your own favor.
All of this is assuming that someone wants to give the bulk of their lives to trying to understand. If they would rather, you know, leave the house once in a while, then the importance of relying on legitimate authorities becomes even more important- and a permanent state of affairs, if the thinker isn’t willing to do what it takes to become an authority themselves.
Not in the context we're talking about, no. Sticking with either one is less risky than setting out on one's own. The risk of hell is a completely different matter than the risk of being wrong, which is what I was talking about.
Notice the implied chronology in what you said? First, examine them all. Then, draw your conclusions based on what you've examined. Not 'draw me own conclusions right now, and examine other people's conclusions in my spare time from an idle curiousity about who agrees with me and who doesn't.'
Sure, if you [i]actually are[/i] going to examine them all and base your conclusions on what you discover, then I agree. Most people are never going to do that though. Most people who say they [i]are[/i] doing that are never going to do that.