• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Automatic scripture quoting

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
When you (the people with whom this applies) do scripture quoting in light conversations (and one sentence statements at times), is it automatic from memory?

In theological conversations with non-abrahamics, I can see the use of scripture quoting. That, or maybe in conversations where the non-theist have scripture as well to swap understandings (interfaith), but in regular conversations?

Wouldn't it be more productive to not use scriptures when talking about one's faith and interpretation thereof? Use your own words?

Personally, as a non-believer talking with a believer, I'd assume if he speaks about god and its from his own view, he is telling the truth so far his conviction lies. Unless I'm challenging scripture itself or facts or things that are objective, but whether god exists and other questions like that, no. Scripture isn't needed because convictions are personal.

So, to whom this applies, what's the delio with the scripture quoting?
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
When you (the people with whom this applies) do scripture quoting in light conversations (and one sentence statements at times), is it automatic from memory?
So, to whom this applies, what's the delio with the scripture quoting?
I do it but not all the time. It is generally not from memory except for the short sayings (Mahavakyas - what we term 'great sayings', these are just two or three words), otherwise I have to look up. Moreover, I do not like careless and wrong quoting, I respect these quotes. Sometimes, I have to correct the translations which differ from the original (problem mostly with Hare-Krishna/Prabhupada translation of BhagawadGita).
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
When you (the people with whom this applies) do scripture quoting in light conversations (and one sentence statements at times), is it automatic from memory?

In theological conversations with non-abrahamics, I can see the use of scripture quoting. That, or maybe in conversations where the non-theist have scripture as well to swap understandings (interfaith), but in regular conversations?

Wouldn't it be more productive to not use scriptures when talking about one's faith and interpretation thereof? Use your own words?

Personally, as a non-believer talking with a believer, I'd assume if he speaks about god and its from his own view, he is telling the truth so far his conviction lies. Unless I'm challenging scripture itself or facts or things that are objective, but whether god exists and other questions like that, no. Scripture isn't needed because confictions are personal.

So, to whom this applies, what's the delio with the scripture quoting?
Personally I will add the words "in my understanding" to the answer I give as long it is my words and not a direct quote from the teaching.
If I do quote Li Hongzhi I will write it very clearly
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
When you (the people with whom this applies) do scripture quoting in light conversations (and one sentence statements at times), is it automatic from memory?

In theological conversations with non-abrahamics, I can see the use of scripture quoting. That, or maybe in conversations where the non-theist have scripture as well to swap understandings (interfaith), but in regular conversations?

Wouldn't it be more productive to not use scriptures when talking about one's faith and interpretation thereof? Use your own words?

Personally, as a non-believer talking with a believer, I'd assume if he speaks about god and its from his own view, he is telling the truth so far his conviction lies. Unless I'm challenging scripture itself or facts or things that are objective, but whether god exists and other questions like that, no. Scripture isn't needed because convictions are personal.

So, to whom this applies, what's the delio with the scripture quoting?

There are IMO many beautiful and profound sayings in the Bible which I doubt I could phrase any better, so why not quote the passage when appropriate? It's like when someone busts out a Mark Twain quote to suit a situation (his sayings are a real gold mine!).
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wouldn't it be more productive to not use scriptures when talking about one's faith and interpretation thereof? Use your own words?

I see the pure word needs to be quoted. I see using your own words is in reality offering an interpretation.

In the end, do we want to understand what was said, or do we only want a general idea of what is said?

In the Baha'i Writings it tells us to offer the pure word, a quote for your post will demonstrate; ;)

".. O friend of mine! The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked... "

If I alter the key with my own words, it may not open a door ready to be opened.

Regards Tony
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
There are IMO many beautiful and profound sayings in the Bible which I doubt I could phrase any better, so why not quote the passage when appropriate? It's like when someone busts out a Mark Twain quote to suit a situation (his sayings are a real gold mine!).


Not all the time. I love myself some Rainer Maria Rilke, especially her view on living questions into the answers. But to quote it with every philosophical thought and belief I have? I'd be quoting all types of books as my scripture. They all impact me many ways. Some I can't think of the words to say either but I may give a movie example but not all the time as a language.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
a quote for your post will demonstrate; ;)
".. O friend of mine! The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked... "
The quote demonstrates nothing except the views of a monotheist. Potency to open the hearts of men (to his world view where he is the manifestation of Allah) and that he claims to be the door of heaven. Well, every one said so. How otherwise they will gather their following and importance? Word of God a.k.a., word of Bahaollah.

In Hinduism, we do not even know who wrote BhagawadGita. Our stress is not on the writers but on what has been written. :)
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
I see the pure word needs to be quoted. I see using your own words is in reality offering an interpretation.

In the end, do we want to understand what was said, or do we only want a general idea of what is said?

In the Baha'i Writings it tells us to offer the pure word, a quote for your post will demonstrate; ;)

".. O friend of mine! The Word of God is the king of words and its pervasive influence is incalculable. It hath ever dominated and will continue to dominate the realm of being. The Great Being saith: The Word is the master key for the whole world, inasmuch as through its potency the doors of the hearts of men, which in reality are the doors of heaven, are unlocked... "

If I alter the key with my own words, it may not open a door ready to be opened.

Regards Tony

I feel it's much more personal talking directly to a person. I can see and understand his or her faith internally since I can't get that same intimate connection and dialogue through another person's words. There isn't a one method fits all.

Id say the same to bahuallah if he were alive. What do "you" believe.

Direct convo is better. Let's the other know you're, well, human I guess.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The quote demonstrates nothing except the views of a monotheist. Potency to open the hearts of men (to his world view where he is the manifestation of Allah) and that he claims to be the door of heaven. Well, every one said so. How otherwise they will gather their following and importance? Word of God a.k.a., word of Bahaollah.

In Hinduism, we do not even know who wrote BhagawadGita. Our stress is not on the writers but on what has been written. :)

Your reply shows we all have a choice of where we think true wisdom comes from and to me that is a good thing.

If you are happy to pursue your own source, I am not here to change that.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I feel it's much more personal talking directly to a person. I can see and understand his or her faith internally since I can't get that same intimate connection and dialogue through another person's words. There isn't a one method fits all.

Id say the same to bahuallah if he were alive. What do "you" believe.

Direct convo is better. Let's the other know you're, well, human I guess.

I see the Message of Baha'u'llah and all God's Messengers are given for us to find out what it is to be able to converse on a truly personal level, where hearts speak to each other in true love and humility.

There are many stories of people who wanted to go in and ask Baha'u'llah a preconceived question, but when they entered they were unable to remember what they were to ask. While they sat in silence listening to what was being said in the talk being given to all in the room, they would realise their question had been answered in the course of that conversation and further more, they would find that other quandaries they had, had been answered for them.

Thus I see a true conversation of the heart is an ability that is very difficult. When we are still full of self knowledge, when we value our opinions above a greater wisdom, I see that is when we can not have a true conversation of the heart.

I see the writings of the Messages sent from God contain the wisdom of ridding ourselves of that undesired self, so we can find what it is to have a true conversation of the heart.

Enter the quoted passage quoted on a topic being discussed. If it is indeed the answer to what is being discussed, then if both parties were to discuss it, then new meanings may be found.

But I agree that is a two way street. The person who asked the question must really want an answer to what they asked and the person offering the quote must only offer it to help find the answer, with no other intent.

Regards Tony
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
When you (the people with whom this applies) do scripture quoting in light conversations (and one sentence statements at times), is it automatic from memory?

In theological conversations with non-abrahamics, I can see the use of scripture quoting. That, or maybe in conversations where the non-theist have scripture as well to swap understandings (interfaith), but in regular conversations?

Wouldn't it be more productive to not use scriptures when talking about one's faith and interpretation thereof? Use your own words?

Personally, as a non-believer talking with a believer, I'd assume if he speaks about god and its from his own view, he is telling the truth so far his conviction lies. Unless I'm challenging scripture itself or facts or things that are objective, but whether god exists and other questions like that, no. Scripture isn't needed because convictions are personal.

So, to whom this applies, what's the delio with the scripture quoting?

In Western culture, some Biblical phrases are so widely known and deeply ingrained that they just come out in ordinary conversation. Eg. "Eye for an eye," "love your neighbor as yourself," "the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing," "Jesus wept," etc. There's many more I'm sure I'm just not thinking of right now.
 

Regiomontanus

Ματαιοδοξία ματαιοδοξιών! Όλα είναι ματαιοδοξία.
In Western culture, some Biblical phrases are so widely known and deeply ingrained that they just come out in ordinary conversation. Eg. "Eye for an eye," "love your neighbor as yourself," "the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing," "Jesus wept," etc. There's many more I'm sure I'm just not thinking of right now.

Yes! I don't think most people realize just how much it has influenced popular sayings. Here are 50:

Top 50 Most Popular Phrases From The Bible
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
In Western culture, some Biblical phrases are so widely known and deeply ingrained that they just come out in ordinary conversation. Eg. "Eye for an eye," "love your neighbor as yourself," "the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing," "Jesus wept," etc. There's many more I'm sure I'm just not thinking of right now.

The point you raise is the quandary, I see we should attribute our thought to a source, as such, quoting the source of the thought is my preference as the quote says what I would say, without attributing it to myself.

I can say 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' and many would know the source was not mine. But what happens when I do not quote and someone agrees or disagrees with what is said, I would not like to think they attribute it as my thought, when it was not.

I also see this is the quandary many face with my posts, the wisdom of our oneness is a shared wisdom and not owned by my opinion.

Regards Tony
 
Top