IMO
As I understand it, when
@Seeker of White Light says "all religious teachings have truth to them" he is referring to the original scriptures, not to every later expounder of those those scriptures.
I am just exploring some of the recommendations and advice for non-believers stated in the OP. Specifically:
"So non believers, if you want the real answers from religious scripture, you better start practicing, because there are no short cuts to gain wisdom from scriptures, one has to practice it every day to gain wisdom and deeper understanding."
I chose some extreme examples of some who have practiced their religion every day to gain wisdom, and for me personally, I do not see that wisdom was gained, and in fact, to my mind, great harm was done.
You add the criteria of limiting ones self to "original scriptures" and to essentially disregard every later expounder of those scriptures. The first dilemma here is that we are now distinguishing between any religious belief or teaching and saying that only some are actually correct and will provide the sought after wisdom. In other posts, the OP seems to favor the Abrahamic based religions as representative of the true word of God.
The problem you bring up is this concept of what is a "later expounder"? Certainly for Jews, Muslims, and Christians, John Smith of LDS would be considered a later expounder and therefore disregarded by your criteria. And again, using that criteria, Muhammad would certainly be considered a later expounder to the Christian community, and so if we are faithful to your concept of originalism, we must also dismiss his teachings. And at last, Jesus is certainly a later expounder when seem from the perspective of those in the Jewish faith. Sticking to originalism, that leaves us with the Tanakh as our reliable, original scripture if we are to limit ourselves to the Abrahamic tradition.
Have I gotten this correct in terms of the OP and your opinion?
