I am the first in line to say that each is entitled to their own point of view. After all, I believe am … so it would be inconsistent to deny others the same right. Point of view means you are seeing something from where you stand in relation to it. It is therefore, by definition, always a relative and partial appreciation of the complete view/whole picture.
However, members of religious organisations have a dangerous habit of assuming their point of view, which might in itself be a completely valid and true partial appreciation, to be the complete and absolute understanding of God. Having artificially promoted a partial appreciation to THE complete understanding, it becomes almost impossible to accommodate the views of others. And when faced with religious belief that seems to contradict their own they are quick to demonise. They are not able to consider that the other is looking at the same thing, but from another point of view, and as a consequence, with a different appreciation. They take other views as challenge to their faith and resentment, conflit and eventually even war result. The history of our planet is full of this sort of thing.
So why do we resist accepting that while we might know something, we might see something … we don’t have a complete understanding? Why does it make us feel so in-secure?
I think it is the disease of the beginner.