I liked the first comment:

In some ways, this reads to me in the same vein as, “It’s a black thing. You wouldn’t understand.”

Are, then, people like me simply doomed to condemnation? To ask one who relies upon reason to stop reasoning is like asking a speed reader to stop reading so quickly. I doubt it can be done.

The article seemed to draw a bright red line between those who are in and those who are out. If you're inside the circle you get it. If you're out there doesn't seem to be a clearcut way for you to cross that line. Now maybe that's just the way things are but it did come across as off-putting to me.

Some people thrive on mystery and paradox. In all sincerity good for them! But I really wonder what the author would recommend we do with those who have an equally strong desire for straightforward answers.

I think where the author and I differ is that I believe that any religion/philosophy/belief system worth its salt should be transparent and able to withstand honest questions.

This doesn't mean that I expect immediate answers to the greatest mysteries in life - why is there so much suffering in the world?, what happens after death?, why do spouses always ask you to get something from the other side of the house 1.5 seconds after you sit down? ;) - only that the answer shouldn't boil down to "only the pure at heart can truly understand this" stuff.

I personally find that approach off-putting. It shuts down the conversation rather than encouraging it to continue.

What do you think?