• 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!

Mangling others' religions

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
To answer the o.p., I have two problems with what becomes mangling a religion, mine in particular. @Vinayaka already pointed one issue, namely when a non-Hindu tells a Hindu about Hinduism. Worse yet, getting it completely wrong. On one hand it can be humorous, on the other hand, it can be misleading when third party people believe it.

The other issue is something like one finds here
Specific similarities between the lives of Jesus and Krishna. There are some similarities as I have maintained, but this is not only trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, it's using a 20 lb. sledge hammer to pound it in.


Basically, similarities are too easy to find. All you have to do is ignore the obvious differences, and see what's left.
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Well, I see your point; however maybe you can see my point as the message was from one Jew to another.
Even though I am secular, I am still a nevertheless Jew & I cannot count the number of times I have been told by people of other backgrounds how they are true ones. This is since I was a child of 7.

I also see your point.

What we must all consider, if we believe there is One God, is that God doeth as God willeth.

Why would we consider we are the only rightly guided people's?

If We can look beyond that, then I see we find God in all hearts, we find that God is refracted in this world as Many Names in many ages.

Regards Tony
 
Last edited:

halbhh

The wonder and awe of "all things".
I also see your point.

What we must all consider, if we believe there is One God, is that God doeth as God willeth.

Why would we consider we are the only rightly guided people's?

If We can look beyond that, the I see we find God in all hearts, we find that God is refracted in this world as Many Names in many ages.

Regards Tony
As I think of it, many have tried to find God, but not all were meeting His requirements, so that instead of finding Him they found other things. But some did find Him. Here's a key part, what we can know is one of His requirements to seek Him successfully:
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5
That as Christ said, only those that can be like little children can ever enter. (those who refuse to be humble like that will "never enter")
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Basically, similarities are too easy to find. All you have to do is ignore the obvious differences, and see what's left.

I see we are encouraged to face those differences. These become the clash of differing opinions that can bring about sparks of greater truths.

I am also happy and accept we are all, in some way, unchanging in our approach to many of these matters. In those aspects, we are best to remain silent.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As I think of it, many have tried to find God, but not all were meeting His requirements, so that instead of finding Him they found other things. But some did find Him. Here's a key part, what we can know is one of His requirements to seek Him successfully:
Psalm 138:6; Proverbs 3:34; Proverbs 29:23; Matthew 23:12; Luke 1:52; James 4:6; 1 Peter 5:5
That as Christ said, only those that can be like little children can ever enter. (those who refuse to be humble like that will "never enter")

I think anyone that has good and virtue in their heart and lives life accordingly has found aspects of the Light of God within.

We get to choose how bright we reflect all that is of God.

Life has proven that many people think they offer that light, when in fact they offer naught but darkness.

Regards Tony
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Is it justified to interpret someone's scriptures differently than those the scripture belongs to?

For example, the New Age teaching that Jesus was a guru who lived in India, and that he was teaching a form of eastern religion.
No he didn't and no he wasn't.

Seems to me, we have to understand people's religious claims from the perspective of those who believe and practice the religion. And, we have to understand and interpret people's scriptures from the perspective of how those who believe these books to be scripture understand them.

IMHO:
All people are free to have an opinion about Spirituality or Religion. Also if it is not their own. Interpreting Scriptures differently is not only justified, it's even good. Means you put your own feeling in it. No need to believe blindly, like sheep. Be your own Master. Dare to think for yourself.

Scriptures are from "God" given to humanity. If certain groups or humans claim it's "their Scripture" they missed the point in my humble opinion.

The more enlightened you become, the better you can interpret Scriptures. Those who are "unenlightened" will probably misinterpret even their "own" Scriptures. So better not listen to others blindly. I heard many Imams say quite "unenlightened" things. I rather read/interpret Koran myself.

I have no fear, that if I make a mistake, I will be going to Hell etc.. That might be a reason that some people are scared to think for themselves on this.
 

Jedster

Well-Known Member
I also see your point.

What we must all consider, if we believe there is One God, is that God doeth as God willeth.

Why would we consider we are the only rightly guided people's?

If We can look beyond that, then I see we find God in all hearts, we find that God is refracted in this world as Many Names in many ages.

Regards Tony


doeth? willeth? seriously, is this how you speak?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
doeth? willeth? seriously, is this how you speak?

It is the English of Kings James, used in Bible and Baha'i translations.

Scattered in His Writings, Bahá'u'lláh repeatedly, reveales the phrase:
"He doeth, whatsoever He willeth, and ordaineth what he desireth."

Regards Tony
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Is it justified to interpret someone's scriptures differently than those the scripture belongs to?

For example, the New Age teaching that Jesus was a guru who lived in India, and that he was teaching a form of eastern religion.

No he didn't and no he wasn't.

Seems to me, we have to understand people's religious claims from the perspective of those who believe and practice the religion. And, we have to understand and interpret people's scriptures from the perspective of how those who believe these books to be scripture understand them.

It is very important to gain the perspective of the person claiming the religion. As an example, one could talk to a thousand Christians and find that none of them agree on most of the major scriptural interpretations.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
There are of course other ways at looking at this. I have done my research and see no reason why Baha'u'llah is not as claimed.

Of course, you are free to make your comments, but to prove your point you would have to show why the explanations, given by Baha'u'llah and authorized Baha'i Writings, are not a valid interpretation. One would also have to prove how their interpretation is exclusively valid.

Regards Tony
Hi Tony. As always, I'm sure you remember that I'm harsher in the forum than in real life because it's a debate forum. Truthfully, in real life I simply appreciate the belief in One God and good ethics of Baha'is.

That said, I think that on any number of occasions, we have tangled over this issue, and gotten into detail. I have given examples. You simply have not accepted them. You are convinced, and it really doesn't matter what anyone else has to say.

I wish you well.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It is the English of Kings James, used in Bible and Baha'i translations.

Scattered in His Writings, Bahá'u'lláh repeatedly, reveales the phrase:
"He doeth, whatsoever He willeth, and ordaineth what he desireth."

Regards Tony


doeth? willeth? seriously, is this how you speak?

It is called Early Modern English.

The language was falling out of use even before the KJV was made. By failing out of use I mean it was developing into the Modern English we know. Yee, Thee, Thine, Thou, and Thy was being replaced by You, for example.

Why did Bahá'u'lláh use a language that was dead before he was born?
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It is called Early Modern English.

The language was falling out of use even before the KJV was made. By failing out of use I mean it was developing into the Modern English we know. Yee, Thee, Thine, Thou, and Thy was being replaced by You, for example.

Why did Bahá'u'lláh use a language that was dead before he was born?

Baha'u'llah wrote in Arabic and Persian, as did his scribes.

Shoghi Effendi the Guardian went to Oxford University in England to study English so He could better translate the writings.

Some earlier translators (including E.G. Browne) chose this or similar formal styles to match the elevated and elegant style in the original Arabic and Persian.

That may be why he chose to translate Baha'i Writings into KJ English, but this letter showed he prefered that style;

"Shoghi Effendi himself uses the King James version of the Bible, both because it is an authoritative one and in beautiful English.
(28 October 1949 to an individual believer; published in "Bahá'í News", no. 228, February 1950, p. 4).

Regards Tony
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Baha'u'llah wrote in Arabic and Persian, as did his scribes.

Shoghi Effendi the Guardian went to Oxford University in England to study English so He could better translate the writings.

Some earlier translators (including E.G. Browne) chose this or similar formal styles to match the elevated and elegant style in the original Arabic and Persian.

That is a poor argument. All this is doing is making it look flashy. The KJV has valid reasons for use of EME. Your religion doesn't.

Songhi would have learned Modern English as a language not EME. EME at that point was dead. He would have learned it in English Literature not merely English. More so using a dead language for translations in 20th century is to purposefully use the wrong language.

That may be why he chose to translate Baha'i Writings into KJ English, but this letter showed he prefered that style;

"Shoghi Effendi himself uses the King James version of the Bible, both because it is an authoritative one and in beautiful English.
(28 October 1949 to an individual believer; published in "Bahá'í News", no. 228, February 1950, p. 4).

These reasons are arbitrary.
 
Last edited:

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That is a poor argument. All this is doing is making it look flashy. The KJV has valid reasons for use of EME. Your religion doesn't.

Songhi would have learned Modern English as a language not EME. EME at that point was dead. He would have learned it in English Literature not merely English. More so using a dead language for translations in 20th century is to purposefully use the wrong language.

These reasons are arbitrary.

Of course that is only your opinion which you are entitled to.

It was not an argument, I offered, I gave you history. Shoghi Effendi did not get to finish his study, Abdul'baha passed away and He became the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith with full Authority to interpret and translate.

Why make a comment not based in knowledge as to what he studied?

Shoghi Effendi has said in the Future other translations may be done.

Regards Tony
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Of course that is only your opinion which you are entitled to.

It was not an argument, I offered, I gave you history. Shoghi Effendi did not get to finish his study, Abdul'baha passed away and He became the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith with full Authority to interpret and translate.

Why make a comment not based in knowledge as to what he studied?

My comment was question followed by an opinion. Argument was about the reason why not something you advocated. It establishes his reasons were not about linguistics but art. I found the reason to be arbitrary.

Are Modern English translations the standard now or EME?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
My comment was question followed by an opinion. Argument was about the reason why not something you advocated. It establishes his reasons were not about linguistics but art. That is a horrible method to use by a translator.

It could very well be that He knew Arabic, Persian and English more than people are want to give Him credit for. :)

One can also choose to mangle the topic.

Regards Tony
 

Shad

Veteran Member
It could very well be that He knew Arabic, Persian and English more than people are want to give Him credit for. :)

Perhaps but that is not how you answered. So this is just speculation

One can also choose to mangle the topic.

Sure I am going off-topic. I just wanted to know why a specific language was used by the author of the quote you posted.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
It is very important to gain the perspective of the person claiming the religion. As an example, one could talk to a thousand Christians and find that none of them agree on most of the major scriptural interpretations.
Very difficult, if not impossible to gain the perspective of another person. That perspective got there from their experiences. In order to do it really well, you'd have to have those same experiences, which is impossible.
 
Top