Please refrain from proletyzing in this thread. You can start your own thread or use PMs for this. I prefer my threads to stay on topic.

Thank you.

A laudable answer, but I find it difficult that you are a follower of revealed religion when you give an answer like this. I would peg you squarely in the unrevealed religion camp.

It seems consistent to me (though I'm often labelled as some kind of exception).

I do consider the Bible to be inspired in some way by God so in that (rather tepid) sense I'm a follower of a revealed religion. Nonetheless, it is a fact of life that many followers of 'my' religion bitterly disagree about a whole range of important topics. I don't think allowing the possibility that my preferred interpretation is incorrect is a problem.

One approach I've taken with 'believers of certainty' before is to ask if they have ever changed their mind on theological questions. They nearly always have and it seems to me they are guilty of grave overconfidence if they now maintain to be in possession of The Truth. (Unfortunately, this is often quickly followed up by an approach similar to your OP - "Of course I'm not perfect, but I'm learning and changing and growing thanks to God. Anyhow...THOSE guys are wrong. I'm sure of it.")

The point is not what you or I think is correct. The fact is that very intelligent and devout theologians have taken a contrary view to you, I or other very intelligent and devout theologians. That fact is difficult to explain if the Bible is taken to be complete, clear and understandable to everyone.

While I certainly see the wisdom in allowing for error, there is also merit to arguing one's stance more boldly. Not necessarily due to zeal, but because it puts it more squarely to the test.

Like my father tells me if I compromise a statement with if/maybe/could "If there is no commitment in a claim, it is not interesting to discuss". (rough translation from Norwegian)

Well I agree with the sentiment - but although I may argue boldly for something in an attempt to explore the issue, that doesnt imply I'm more or less confident that it's correct.

I think the commitment to a claim comes from the evidence which supports it - my uncertain brand of religion is (in my opinion) better justified based on the evidence available to support it than someone utterly convinced of their own interpretation.

I may be missing something in translation, but I don't see the value in excluding from discussion those views of which we are unsure. I'm happy to bow out though, I broadly agree that people who claim knowledge of the easy parts and declare knowledge of the hard questions 'beyond scrutiny' are being inconsistent.

He is basically saying that one should argue with certainty even the things we doubt, because it will be a better approach for getting answers. Using "if" can be a way of holding onto a belief we fear losing or even worse, be used to enter debate with the intention of never being wrong.

This certainly seems to be the case to me. I file this observation right next to my mental note on people who admittedly can't do algebra, but yet hold firm beliefs regarding the history and origin of life, the universe, and everything (no pun intended), because they "feel it in their heart," and/or it makes sense to them, or, you know, "just look around... are you telling me god didn't do all this?!"

(I'm not claiming that no religious people can do algebra; just that this sort of thing is common; also, replace "do algebra" with "balance a checkbook" if it makes it seem less condescending).

I'm also bookmarking this thread for cognitive dissonance, examples of. I find it amazing, but (with regret) not surprising, that people like Concerto or Stus chime in only to dismiss the OP or claim that you aren't being clear and direct.

As you are talking about revealed religion so I am referring to it. I don't think that I am saying that God being beyond scrutiny is the only thing that makes religions meaningful. When we start the thinking process in the wrong direction, the assumptions will be wrong too.
You seem to be assuming that god says, no one understands him, cause he wants to show ppl that they are dumb. But in revealed relgion God says that "God created man in his own image". This means that "man" is capable of understanding everything. So why does God say:
"God works in mysterious ways"
"You can't attribute human traits to God"
"You can't judge God"
"God is inscrutable"
"Maybe God has his reasons that we don't know"
This is for that we learn to be patient (that we don't understand it now, this doesn't mean that we will never) and indeed the most powerful ppl are those who are patient. (For example: Someone who is a mathematician, if he wasn't patient and would like to learn everything in the first day, he never would become one. He had to be patient and learn everything step by step).
Why did I say that the only thing that is important regarding religions are those sentences?
What is going on in the mind of someone who is unhappy? He thinks that something is wrong. He thinks that something should not be in a way that it is, it should be in a way that he wishes (ego). So the only thing that one needs to learn for not becomming unhappy is: Being patient (learn to wonder and not to cry like a baby) and know that you don't understand everything.
If we would only learn this, we would be capable of awaking deaths. This is what revealed religions promise. Remember Jesus was 40 days in the desert without food and water before he could heal. Jesus is an example that you don't beleive, you are a dying animal, but that you believe in your almighty power, which has to be learnt through patient.

The standard response here is to claim that what god does is good by definition, which is, of course, utter crap. While many theists will claim this in an attempt to wriggle out of this mess, I suspect most of them would not accept 'raping babies is good' even if god claimed it were.

They may not claim that raping babies is good, but there are verses in the bible where Christians have argued that killing them was good.

God slaying every first born Egyptian child, for instance. God did it, so it's not evil.

I don't see the pun.

If it is true, it tells me God is not reached through education, intelligence or wealth.

Maybe it isn't a pun. Life, the Universe and Everything is a book. So (no book reference intended) may have been more apt. But the book does touch on topics not totally unrelated to religion, so maybe that brings it a little closer to punhood.

Edit: Meh.

Douglas Adams is an outspoken atheist and one of his famous phrases is "life, the universe, and everything." It is the name of one of the Hitchhiker series books and the subject of the question to which the answer is 42 (the actual question being lost, unfortunately).

I actually think i prefer that answer to them saying i dont have the ability to judge him as wrong but they do have the ability to judge him as right. Both are pretty underwhelming though.

The richest nation in the world is God fearing. What you claim above is false.

The poorest and/or least intelligent people of the richest nation in the world are God fearing.

FYP?

Nope.

So you look down on a Christian for being rich in one thread, but in this one you look down on a Christian for being poor.

looks like an outlier

Well said.

In addition, it could mean the institutional socialization that correlates with education, intelligence or wealth includes atheist indoctrination.

what is this "institutional socialization" you speak of?

What then is the point about revering a being that may supposedly be reached via ignorance, stupidity and squalor?
Here is the historical answer:
It is the answer of the slaves (literally) to the existential question posed by the Roman overlords: "Yes, Romans, we cannot beat you because you are educated, intelligent, wealthy and beautiful; we, on the other hand, are ignorant, stupid, ugly and poor. But we will imagine and create a being purely out of our ignorance and stupidity. A cockroach, if you will, which your sun will never reach and effect. And this cockroach will take us to his eternal resting place to live with him after we die. You, the intelligent Romans, on the other hand, will burn in hell."
The imagined cockroach is the Christian God and his eternal resting place is the heaven.

PS: Above is a brief summary of Friedrich Nietzsche's main position vis-a-vis Christianity, which I share.

To return to my original question: Why would you revere a being that cannot be reached through education, intelligence or wealth (unless you are ignorant, stupid or poor)?
Cheers

What I claim is not false and you are full of it.