Then you should change the teaching.

[F1fan]

In the scriptures

Haha. Obviously it isn't with all the disagrement, as I noted, and as you ignored. Basically the scripture means very little, what a person wants it to mean is important.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So anything goes.

Catholics are deciding whether they accept the ban on abortion by the Church. Muslims can vary widely from very passive to extremists. The same with most every theist. So we are not seeing any uniform obedience to a "righteous way of living", we see a lot of disagreement and person preference. So where exactly is the authority from God?

The same authority for the claim that reality is say physical. Or morality is really this for all humans based on the following definitions....

 

[Spirit of Light]

I

Haha. Obviously it isn't with all the disagrement, as I noted, and as you ignored. Basically the scripture means very little, what a person wants it to mean is important.

is it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Haha. Obviously it isn't with all the disagrement, as I noted, and as you ignored. Basically the scripture means very little, what a person wants it to mean is important.

There same is the case for texts about what science is. That is not unique to religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you aware that often the new translations are done by non religious people socalled scholars

Yes.

And unless you make it clear which translations you support or oppose, you're endorsing all of them.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes.

And unless you make it clear which translations you support or oppose, you're endorsing all of them.

I don't know every translation of every religious scriptures. I am not a scholar in religion

 

[F1fan]

There same is the case for texts about what science is. That is not unique to religion.

Not really. A science text says mixing two poisins results in safe table salt. That is just explaining how nature works. Science corrects any limitations in knowledge as it investigates more, so becomes more precise over time.

Religion? It has texts based on many assumptions that can't ve verified, and often laws that are obsolete as societies progress towards more tolerance. So we observe followers become confused and divided into camps. They struggle to find their own place between their own morality and immoral views of their religions. Where is the authority? Supposedly an absent God, and flawed mortals are left to sort out the fallout, as if they have few options. I am shocked that many theists feel trapped in a religion they have authority over.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well there are no witches according to how christians view them and what the term historically meant. But the term has evolved as terms often do from time to time and some people use the term to describe their practices. Such as myself I consider myself a witch. As a result i have faced some harassment from Christians and even almost was kicked out of my home cuz of it. Even tho I dont use the term as it historically has been meant.

Doesn't happen in the US, maybe. But it happens...
(same article I linked to earlier...I lived in this country for a couple of years...lol)

Papua New Guinea fails to end ‘evil’ of sorcery-related violence | Women News | Al Jazeera

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really. A science text says mixing two poisins results in safe table salt. That is just explaining how nature works. Science corrects any limitations in knowledge as it investigates more, so becomes more precise over time.

Religion? It has texts based on many assumptions that can't ve verified, and often laws that are obsolete as societies progress towards more tolerance. So we observe followers become confused and divided into camps. They struggle to find their own place between their own morality and immoral views of their religions. Where is the authority? Supposedly an absent God, and flawed mortals are left to sort out the fallout, as if they have few options. I am shocked that many theists feel trapped in a religion they have authority over.

It didn't say the results of science. I said, that e.g. I have a book written by an expert on science, that there are 7 different kinds of science and natural science is just one.

 

[sayak83]

Some religions say there is one Supreme God yes, others say many Gods. But why should we as non enlighten humans try to change the scriptures to fit our own needs, when the scriptures say exactly the opposite? We should adapt to the teaching we follow

I see scripture insightful (to a greater or lesser degree) human made attempts at explaining and communicating experiences of the transcendent. In that way they are like models that attempt to explain the spiritual world just like models we have created to explain the physical world. Some or more accurate models than others, but none of them are complete and 100% perfect, just as none of our models of the physical world are 100% perfect. So one should learn from them, but also use one's own insights and experiences to go beyond them and improve upon them. Our words, practices and understanding should continue to add to and improve upon the work done by our previous generations, be it secular knowledge or spiritual knowledge.

 

[Father Heathen]

Funny

Was Bahá'u'lláh funny?

 

[Muffled]

I read this is an other thread. And it got me thinking.

No, we humans can not just change the scriptures to our liking, we can't just remove or add to a religious scripture what we "want " it to say.
If we did, it would be a voilation of Gods truth.

It is the humans who would have to change according to the scriptures.

Thoughts?

I believe the interpretations can be changed to fit what the text actually says.

 

[Muffled]

Nah, all we have to do is declare ourselves messengers of God with an updated message from her. Then we can change all kinds of things.

I believe that would be like the B man.

 

[Muffled]

That's precisely what the original authors of scripture did in ascribing their own thoughts to God.

In my opinion.

I believe one must be clairvoyant and a time traveler to know what is in a person's mind.

 

[F1fan]

I think too many theists rely heavily on their church leaders, and while they might consider thesmelves followers of a Jesus or Muhammed what they are realy doing is following a religious leader and that person's interpretation. Ideally I would suggest theists read a diversity of texts, and learn from various leaders, and use the self's own moral authiorty and sense as guidance. What about those who are unable, or just morally backrupt? There should be peer pressure on them to adopt moral norms, and help them realize their limitations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know every translation of every religious scriptures. I am not a scholar in religion

I'm not talking about obscure translations or translations that haven't been made yet.

When you say that a religious scripture is good and from God, you're telling whoever's listening that all the mainstream translations - e.g. what you might find at a bookstore or in the church down the street, or on a mainstream website like biblegateway.com - is good and from God. This includes all the bad and biased translations out there in the mainstream.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm not talking about obscure translations or translations that haven't been made yet.

When you say that a religious scripture is good and from God, you're telling whoever's listening that all the mainstream translations - e.g. what you might find at a bookstore or in the church down the street, or on a mainstream website like biblegateway.com - is good and from God. This includes all the bad and biased translations out there in the mainstream.

Ok to clear the situation then...
The original text given to the Prophet or spiritual teacher is from God in my understanding.

If human beings translate it later it is a human error if words are translated wrong. That will then not be the word of God, but of the translatør.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, we humans can not just change the scriptures to our liking, we can't just remove or add to a religious scripture what we "want " it to say. If we did, it would be a violation of Gods truth.

It happens every day.

And nobody violates "God's truth" in their own mind. If you think so and tell them, they will generally tell you that it is you violating God's truth.

I don't change the scriptures. The only thing i change is my personal understanding of them.

And you see a meaningful distinct there? Are you one of those people who refers to God's unchanging truth? There is no such thing if one feels free to reinterpret any set of words at will. There's just his "truth" for now that he is attributing to a deity.

Following God is the right way for religious people, but not blindly

There is no other way to "follow God" but blindly. Blindness in this context means lacking sufficient evidence to justify belief according to the methods of critical analysis. All other belief is faith, and faith is blind. If it weren't, if there were something to see besides words in a book, it wouldn't be faith.

And incidentally, if you are deciding what the words mean, then "God" follows you.

In this thread I speak of the truth told in religious scriptures.

Thank you for clarifying what you consider truth to be - whatever you understand scriptures to be saying this week, which could change next week. Empiricists use a different definition for truth.

i never will change any religious scriptures not even for 100 billion dollar

You've said that you would change what they mean. I don't see a difference.

Change of understanding is a part of the path to a clear pure understanding

Only if one is learning actual truth. If he doesn't know what truth is or how to identify it, then changes in understanding aren't likely to be improvements in understanding.

 

[Spirit of Light]

It happens every day.

And nobody violates "God's truth" in their own mind. If you think so and tell them, they will generally tell you that it is you violating God's truth.



And you see a meaningful distinct there? Are you one of those people who refers to God's unchanging truth? There is no such thing if one feels free to reinterpret any set of words at will. There's just his "truth" for now that he is attributing to a deity.



There is no other way to "follow God" but blindly. Blindness in this context means lacking sufficient evidence to justify belief according to the methods of critical analysis. All other belief is faith, and faith is blind. If it weren't, if there were something to see besides words in a book, it wouldn't be faith.

And incidentally, if you are deciding what the words mean, then "God" follows you.



Thank you for clarifying what you consider truth to be - whatever you understand scriptures to be saying this week, which could change next week. Empiricists use a different definition for truth.



You've said that you would change what they mean. I don't see a difference.



Only if one is learning actual truth. If he doesn't know what truth is or how to identify it, then changes in understanding aren't likely to be improvements in understanding.

Are you confused or something? Your logic is totally of..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok to clear the situation then...
The original text given to the Prophet or spiritual teacher is from God in my understanding.

If human beings translate it later it is a human error if words are translated wrong. That will then not be the word of God, but of the translatør.

That's fine for me this one time, but I'm saying that if you don't clarify this every single time you endorse your religious scriptures, in the times you don't, you're still responsible when someone listens to you and seizes on a translation you disagree with.

And even if you consistently specify which version of the text you mean, you're still responsible for every understanding of every passage that can reasonably be taken more than one way, including the ways you disagree with.