Then you should change the teaching.

[F1fan]

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.

It is fortunate that the West has those pesky secular laws that protect atheists, witches, those of minority religions, etc. from the prevailing religious majority. We see what happens in theocratic nations, civil rights go out the window. Iran is an excelent example of a citizenry preferring freedom over the harsh strict rule of Islam. The women of Iran are close to toppling the government, and the government believes it has the authority of God. Why isn't the government killing the protestors if that is the case? It would be totally justified (in their minds). Apparently this illustrates that some humans use "God" as window dressing for their own aims.

 

[metis]

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

Which scriptures? the Bible? the Gita? the Qu'ran? etc.?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Right. That's what "interpretation" is for... to make it say what you want it to say without actually changing the actual words. Just change the meaning instead.

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?

Here's my thought: if you read something and conclude it is ridiculous... discard it instead of assuming there is some "other" "secret" knowledge that makes it not ridiculous.

I wouldn't "rewrite" any "teachings". I'ld just discard them as being nonsense if and when I conclude it is nonsense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Prophets are those in a form of contact with God, humans chose to believe or not believe the Prophets, I am one who believe them to speak the truth and give the true teaching from God

Why do you believe that?
Now you believe the baha'i prophets give the truth.
Previously you believed it was the sufi prophets. Did you change your mind? Why?
Before sufism, it was something else also (forgot what it was), so you changed your mind then also. Why?

And considering you changed your mind at least twice in just the last year... what value does it still have when you say you now "believe" the baha'i prophets?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because I do not see truth in your words (sorry)

That's only the case because you lack the divine wisdom to understand it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tropical punch, fortified with entheogens.

The question remains though....
Does it have electrolytes???


(in case you didn't see that hilarious movie and didn't get the reference: Idiocracy)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What prophet speak are spiritual wisdom.

Then what @Father Heathen speaks is "spiritual wisdom", since he is a prophet.
And it is true that he is a prophet, because he said so.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That requires the ability to doublethink. Not everyone can do that. (I can't and most atheists have difficulties with it. It seems to be a special ability of believers.)

So it must be r

And if a prophet says witches are to be killed, or that gays are to be condemned, the followers will follow that. Father Heathen is correct, there is no actual God coming forth to teach and lead, it is humans who are representing gods that are notably absent. We see many theists act with decency, but we also see atheists act the same way. We can't say it's religon. And when we see theists act through their sriptures to harm others, what do we do?

It is in my understanding only the actions that are sin, not the human

 

[Vinayaka]

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?

So if a scripture stated that the world is flat, we should ignore science, and stick with scripture?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Right. That's what "interpretation" is for... to make it say what you want it to say without actually changing the actual words. Just change the meaning instead.



Here's my thought: if you read something and conclude it is ridiculous... discard it instead of assuming there is some "other" "secret" knowledge that makes it not ridiculous.

I wouldn't "rewrite" any "teachings". I'ld just discard them as being nonsense if and when I conclude it is nonsense.

You do as you wish

 

[Spirit of Light]

Why do you believe that?
Now you believe the baha'i prophets give the truth.
Previously you believed it was the sufi prophets. Did you change your mind? Why?
Before sufism, it was something else also (forgot what it was), so you changed your mind then also. Why?

And considering you changed your mind at least twice in just the last year... what value does it still have when you say you now "believe" the baha'i prophets?

All religions hold trurh, it is just told in a different way ans understanding.

That is my view

 

[Spirit of Light]

Then what @Father Heathen speaks is "spiritual wisdom", since he is a prophet.
And it is true that he is a prophet, because he said so.

Funny

 

[F1fan]

It is in my understanding only the actions that are sin, not the human

I'm not sure what you mean.

I've asked if bigotry is a sin, and have gotten no answer. If a theist believes that gays are to be condemned, but due to laws they don't act on their beliefs, are they not sinners just because they fear jail?

To my mind the attitude is the sin. In law two or more people plotting to commit a crime IS a crime. It's acrime even though they didn't act yet, and so this suggests intent has consequences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. That's what "interpretation" is for... to make it say what you want it to say without actually changing the actual words. Just change the meaning instead.

That brings up something else that @Seeker of White Light and others who proclaim religious scripture as true are responsible for: if a passage supports multiple interpretations, then by proclaiming the scripture, the proclaimer takes responsibility for every interpretation the scripture supports, not just the one they personally agree with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All religions hold trurh, it is just told in a different way ans understanding.

That is my view

Then why do you now identify as a baha'i and previously as a sufi?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm not sure what you mean.

I've asked if bigotry is a sin, and have gotten no answer. If a theist believes that gays are to be condemned, but due to laws they don't act on their beliefs, are they not sinners just because they fear jail?

To my mind the attitude is the sin. In law two or more people plotting to commit a crime IS a crime. It's acrime even though they didn't act yet, and so this suggests intent has consequences.

Religious people believe in the teaching they foklow. They know what is sad to be righteous way of living. If the law of the land say something different, each person has to do and act upon what they see as right for them.
If a gay religious person want to act according to their lust, that is up to them

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Religious people believe in the teaching they foklow. They know what is sad to be righteous way of living. If the law of the land say something different, each person has to do and act upon what they see as right for them.
If a gay religious person want to act according to their lust, that is up to them

Yeah, but there is more than lust. You understanding of lust is your religion. My understanding is different.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That brings up something else that @Seeker of White Light and others who proclaim religious scripture as true are responsible for: if a passage supports multiple interpretations, then by proclaiming the scripture, the proclaimer takes responsibility for every interpretation the scripture supports, not just the one they personally agree with.

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

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yeah, but there is more than lust. You understanding of lust is your religion. My understanding is different.

Of course

 

[Revoltingest]

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?

Why is an already existing scripture
truer than a change you'd make?