> Your second paragraph, however, I do understand and am in agreement with, except I have to wonder if these devote people truely have a connection to the Sacred or simple have a deep understanding of themselves.

People from several schools of thought say that's the same thing. The basic theory is that as a creation (or a part of nature, or whatever you happen to believe in), a person has within them aspects of the Sacred, which may be understood if/when that person develops to a certain point. Note that there are plenty of further ways of looking at *this* belief - including the one that there is no Sacred except what we create within ourselves, and the one that says there is but we're part of it, and the one that says there is but he made us so we could be capable of seeking him and finding him.

The real question comes down to whether you believe there is *one* way of knowing the Sacred (eg, through what is revealed in a particular religion) or more than one.

Personally, I think that since it's impossible to tell objectively whether any particular person or religious group is "connected to the Sacred" or merely has worked out useful and wise precepts on their own, I avoid the whole question by taking an interest in all philosophies, following the parts which seem to be good advice and assuming it will all work out OK somehow. My beliefs are a lot more complicated than that, of course, but I don't have time to write a 10,000 word essay explaining them, and I doubt anybody would want to read it if I did.

Brunnen-"the most useful and wise precept is Never Get Involved In A Religious Discussion, and I just broke it"G