• 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!

Then you should change the teaching.

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
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?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

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. :)
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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...

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

In my opinion.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
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?
Each of us is responsible for our own words and actions.

If someone proclaims a religion as true or as something for others to follow, then they still have to take responsibility for proclaiming the negative parts of the religion. Their other choice would be to proclaim only the parts that they agree with or a modified version of the religion that reflects their views.

For instance, if someone proclaims that the Bible is God's holy word, and another person accepts this and takes the passage "you shall not suffer a witch to live" seriously, the person who proclaimed the Bible shares in the blame. It's no defense to say "but I didn't agree with that part!"

Unless you make it clear which parts of your religion that others should support, oppose, or ignore, then when you proclaim the religion, you're endorsing the whole thing.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
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?
But Christians have changed the Bible a lot. The King James version was quite a new take on the scriptures.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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?
The problem with Abrahamic religions is that it does not distinguish between eternal and metaphysical truths (that do not change with the times and is not context dependent) and social relational truths (which are application oriented and are vary with time, space and context). Eastern religions, to a large, if not full extent, does distinguish between these and hence make it possible for practitioners to remain fluid in their socio-religious behavior and practices while conserving the fundamental principles and insights on which the Dharma/Dao is based.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Each of us is responsible for our own words and actions.

If someone proclaims a religion as true or as something for others to follow, then they still have to take responsibility for proclaiming the negative parts of the religion. Their other choice would be to proclaim only the parts that they agree with or a modified version of the religion that reflects their views.

For instance, if someone proclaims that the Bible is God's holy word, and another person accepts this and takes the passage "you shall not suffer a witch to live" seriously, the person who proclaimed the Bible shares in the blame. It's no defense to say "but I didn't agree with that part!"

Unless you make it clear which parts of your religion that others should support, oppose, or ignore, then when you proclaim the religion, you're endorsing the whole thing.
Of course there are no actual witches, so that law to kill them hurts no one, so it is an easy thing to ignore. If it was to kill gays, well, that would target actual people and their nature.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
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?

Well, many religious scriptures were voted on, changed, etc. Personally, I think that scriptures should be updated with new knowledge. If not, they become irrelevant.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
The problem with Abrahamic religions is that it does not distinguish between eternal and metaphysical truths (that do not change with the times and is not context dependent) and social relational truths (which are application oriented and are vary with time, space and context). Eastern religions, to a large, if not full extent, does distinguish between these and hence make it possible for practitioners to remain fluid in their socio-religious behavior and practices while conserving the fundamental principles and insights on which the Dharma/Dao is based.

Spot on. This is true of most eastern religions I think.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Of course there are no actual witches, so that law to kill them hurts no one, so it is an easy thing to ignore. If it was to kill gays, well, that would target actual people and their nature.
It was just an example. In the case of the Bible, it's also got awful stuff in there about things like subjugating women and using violence as a parenting tool.

... but to keep things more general: any religious scripture has weird or objectionable stuff in it. A believer who's proclaiming the truth of the scripture - especially a proselytizer who's trying to bring new people into the faith - has a choice. They can either make it clear that they're only supporting parts of the scripture or they can take responsibility for the whole thing.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
It was just an example. In the case of the Bible, it's also got awful stuff in there about things like subjugating women and using violence as a parenting tool.

... but to keep things more general: any religious scripture has weird or objectionable stuff in it. A believer who's proclaiming the truth of the scripture - especially a proselytizer who's trying to bring new people into the faith - has a choice. They can either make it clear that they're only supporting parts of the scripture or they can take responsibility for the whole thing.
The best thing to do in discussion is to answer with "in my understanding" that mean that it is the believers own understanding, and the truth could be different from God.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
Scripture, those who wrote it, and those who speak it are not god. Anyone can claim to speak and act on god's behalf. Again, look what happened to Jim Jones' followers.
I do not know who Jim Jones are.

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
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course there are no actual witches, so that law to kill them hurts no one, so it is an easy thing to ignore. If it was to kill gays, well, that would target actual people and their nature.

I'm not so sure; many followers of Wicca and some other earth based and esoteric use the term 'witch' to describe themselves. Unsurprisingly, they are often the target of harassment from some Christians.
 
Top