Then you should change the teaching.

[danieldemol]

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

We don't need to be either when they put their wrong thoughts to paper.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

I believe that would be like the B man.

And also like the J man and either of the two M men who came before and after the J man.

In my opinion.

 

[Pudding]

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.

Some scriptures which promotes vices like slavery, racism, misogyny and/or other evil/immoral behaviors, it's a good idea to remove those vices. So when some religions indoctrinate people to practice those religions' morality, maybe less people will practice those vices.

Indeed we can use interpretation to filter out those vices, but obviously we can also use interpretation to proclaim those vices as highest standard of morality.

By remove those vices, maybe it can eliminate some possibility of some people using interpretation to proclaim those vices as highest standard of morality. That's awesome. Do you agree?

If we did, it would be a voilation of Gods truth.

Please first prove the Gods you talking about exist.
If you successfully prove Gods exist, then please prove the scriptures you talking about are Gods' truth.

If you successfully prove they're facts, then you win this debate. If you fail, then you gain 0 credibility about the truthfulness of your statements.

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

Humans have to change according to the scriptures?
Change to What? For example?

Some humans who're anti-slavery/racism/misogyny/whatever else similar vices have to change to practice those vices because some scriptures says some so-called benevolent Gods use eternal fiery BBQ land to order/threaten people to practice those vices?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Some scriptures which promotes rubbish like slavery, racism, misogyny and/or other evil/immoral behaviors, it's a good idea to remove those rubbish. So when the specific religions indoctrinate people to practice the religions' morality, maybe less people will practice those rubbish.

Indeed we can use interpretation to filter out those rubbish, but obviously we can also use interpretation to proclaim those rubbish as highest standard of morality.

By remove those rubbish, maybe it can eliminate some possibility of some people using interpretation to proclaim those rubbish as highest standard of morality. That's awesome. Do you agree?


Please first prove the Gods you talking about exist.
If you successfully prove Gods exist, then please prove it would be a voilation of Gods truth if we modify the scriptures you talking about.

If you successfully prove they're facts, then you win this debate. If you fail, then you gain 0 credibility about the truthfulness of your statements.


Humans have to change according to the scriptures?
Change to What? For example?

Humans who're anti-slavery/racism/misogyny/whatever else similar rubbish have to change to practice those rubbish because some scriptures says some so called omnibenevolent Gods order people to practice those rubbish?

I believe in Gods existence, if you don't believe in a God that is fully up to you, i have nothing to prove to others

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Heyo, I’m sorry; I almost forgot!

I just have to look at the many bibles that are out there. The RCC has a different version than the Lutherans, the Mormons have the "Book of Mormon" and the JWs have their own version.
If there was one authentic Bible and we could know it, why are there so many now?

Again, you present good, thoughtful questions!
The short answer is: “Because there’s an enemy of Truth out there, and Jesus actually called him “the prince / ruler of this world.” (John 12:31; 14:30) [You’re probably wondering, “why would God allow such a thing?” That’s another subject, that I can detail later…] I would like to try to logically explain this to you later, if you’re willing and amiable….if not, that’s ok…

I’ll address the Apocrypha later. I’m too tired.
Have a good night, Heyo. Thanks for the laugh!

Please bear with me, I hope you can follow my train of thought…

What better way for this enemy of God (and truth) than to try and “mess with” His book of truth? And yes, God even allowed that, to a point. As I mentioned to @SomeRandom earlier in this thread, this attempt at obfuscation affects all people to some degrees in some way or another. God’s Enemy has been effective.

Did you know the Author of the Bible, His name in Hebrew is Yahweh? Or in English, the accepted translation is Jehovah. Or Geova, in Italian. In Japanese, its エホバ (Ehoba). The point is, He has a name. What is the importance of that name? Well, in the oldest copies ( therefore the original manuscripts), it existed over 6,800 times! And when you read Joel 2:32 in the Holman Christian Standard Bible, it says, “Then everyone who calls on the name of Yahweh will be saved..”
The American Standard version renders it, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of Jehovah shall be delivered..”

That’s pretty important, I’d say! The Apostle Paul quoted that verse in Romans 10:13, highlighting the importance of telling others.

But yet, it’s been removed from most Bibles, & replaced with the ambiguous title LORD.

Then there’s the ubiquitous dogma accusing God of physical & eternal torment, and another (very confusing tenet) which relegates God — the only true God of John 17:3 — to a position equal to or even lower than His own son!
These are His Scriptures (Luke 10:21), misused & misinterpreted against Him, i.e., the Father.

And the Apocrypha are similar roads to confusion. But the accepted Bible Canon, worldwide, is 66 books.

Well, it’s late again. Time to catch some zzzz.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Some scriptures which promotes vices like slavery, racism, misogyny and/or other evil/immoral behaviors, it's a good idea to remove those vices. So when some religions indoctrinate people to practice those religions' morality, maybe less people will practice those vices.

Indeed we can use interpretation to filter out those vices, but obviously we can also use interpretation to proclaim those vices as highest standard of morality.

By remove those vices, maybe it can eliminate some possibility of some people using interpretation to proclaim those vices as highest standard of morality. That's awesome. Do you agree?


Please first prove the Gods you talking about exist.
If you successfully prove Gods exist, then please prove the scriptures you talking about are Gods' truth.

If you successfully prove they're facts, then you win this debate. If you fail, then you gain 0 credibility about the truthfulness of your statements.


Humans have to change according to the scriptures?
Change to What? For example?

Some humans who're anti-slavery/racism/misogyny/whatever else similar vices have to change to practice those vices because some scriptures says some so-called benevolent Gods use eternal fiery BBQ land to order/threaten people to practice those vices?

Why would a book whose Author wishes you to love Him & His Son, be so candid as to reveal such seemingly “evil/immoral” events that could result in the opposite?
(I suppose you meant the Bible, right?)

 

[Heyo]

I would like to try to logically explain this to you later, if you’re willing and amiable….if not, that’s ok…

As you might know by now, I don't believe in gods and am sceptical towards people you claim to know "god's will". But that is irrelevant to the question of the OP. That question can be answered with or without a belief in gods.
As I think we agree, we know that the scriptures have been altered by people in the past. And where they haven't been altered, the emphasis and interpretation (what becomes the titular "teachings") have. It would therefore be hubris to claim one specific set of books or one specific teaching to be so holy that it is above improvement.
E.g.: almost all religions and denominations building on the bible have agreed that slavery is not nice although it is described, condoned and even advocated in the bible. Adding a chapter with that insight into the teachings would improve on the bible. Don't you think so?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What are your criteria to "see truth" and why are they more reliable than mine?

Baha'u'llah gave us a Tablet of the True Seeker and listed 10 requirements.

1. He should be content with little, and be freed from all inordinate desire.

2. He should treasure the companionship of those that have renounced the world, and regard avoidance of boastful and worldly people a precious benefit.

3. At the dawn of every day he should commune with God, and with all his soul persevere in the quest of his Beloved.

4. He should consume every wayward thought with the flame of His loving mention, and, with the swiftness of lightning, pass by all else save Him.

5. He should succour the dispossessed, and never withhold his favour from the destitute.

6. He should show kindness to animals, how much more unto his fellow-man, to him who is endowed with the power of utterance.

7. He should not hesitate to offer up his life for his Beloved, nor allow the censure of the people to turn him away from the Truth.

8. He should not wish for others that which he doth not wish for himself, nor promise that which he doth not fulfil.

9. With all his heart should the seeker avoid fellowship with evil doers, and pray for the remission of their sins.

10. He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner, at the hour of death, attained to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the celestial Concourse. And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire.

Our purpose in revealing these convincing and weighty utterances is to impress upon the seeker that he should regard all else beside God as transient, and count all things save Him, Who is the Object of all adoration, as utter nothingness.

These are among the attributes of the exalted, and constitute the hall-mark of the spiritually-minded. They have already been mentioned in connection with the requirements of the wayfarers that tread the Path of Positive Knowledge. When the detached wayfarer and sincere seeker hath fulfilled these essential conditions, then and only then can he be called a true seeker. Whensoever he hath fulfilled the conditions implied in the verse: “Whoso maketh efforts for Us,” (Qur’an 29:69) he shall enjoy the blessing conferred by the words: “In Our ways shall We assuredly guide him.” (Ibid.) – Baha’u’llah, The Book of Certitude, pp. 193-195.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

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?

That most likely will open a can of worms. I note someone asked you how do you know who is a true seeker? Which does helps when we try to understand what has been added to the Word given by God and how we are to find the Word of God.

The Tablet of the True seeker is actually part of the Kitab-i-iqan, you may enjoy reading this commentary on that part.

Tablet of the True Seeker

Regards Tony

 

[setarcos]

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

In my opinion.

#1 How do you know what the original authors did? #2 How do you know they ascribed their own thoughts to God? #3 Where do your own thoughts come from? These may seem like farcical questions but I assure you they are not.

 

[setarcos]

How do you know that my posts aren't divinely inspired and influenced?

What do you mean by divinely inspired? Or influenced? Are you equating the two? Is your intent a question of you speaking for God or God speaking through you? If a messenger arrives at my door claiming to speak for a family member, the president, my boss, or whoever, what criteria would you use to validate the messengers claim?

 

[Father Heathen]

What do you mean by divinely inspired? Or influenced? Are you equating the two? Is your intent a question of you speaking for God or God speaking through you? If a messenger arrives at my door claiming to speak for a family member, the president, my boss, or whoever, what criteria would you use to validate the messengers claim?

The point was "what makes the prophets one believes in more valid than anyone else who has claimed to be a prophet?"

 

[danieldemol]

#1 How do you know what the original authors did? #2 How do you know they ascribed their own thoughts to God? #3 Where do your own thoughts come from? These may seem like farcical questions but I assure you they are not.

The original authors left us books with demonstrably wrong information in them, some of which they said in their books comes from God.

My own thoughts come from my brain.

Hope this helps.

In my opinion.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

What if I claimed to be a prophet? What would make them right and me wrong?

It would be reasonable that it would be the ones which try to live closest to the standards of the God they’re claiming to be the prophet of.

Example: Jesus said his followers would be ‘recognized by their love for each other.’ - John 13:34-35.
Also, they must ‘avoid fornication.’ (1 Corinthians 6:18) (Among other things. Those two - brotherly love & fornication - I have highlighted because showing love and avoiding fornication seem to be the hardest to do.)


So if a group is known for being promiscuous, or if they don’t really show love for their members due to race, nationality, etc…..

….they aren’t the ones. Move on.

 

[Father Heathen]

It would be reasonable that it would be the ones which try to live closest to the standards of the God they’re claiming to be the prophet of.

Example: Jesus said his followers would be ‘recognized by their love for each other.’ - John 13:34-35.
Also, they must ‘avoid fornication.’ (1 Corinthians 6:18) (Among other things. Those two - brotherly love & fornication - I have highlighted because showing love and avoiding fornication seem to be the hardest to do.)


So if a group is known for being promiscuous, or if they don’t really show love for their members due to race, nationality, etc…..

….they aren’t the ones. Move on.

Cowabunga.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

As you might know by now, I don't believe in gods and am sceptical towards people you claim to know "god's will". But that is irrelevant to the question of the OP. That question can be answered with or without a belief in gods.
As I think we agree, we know that the scriptures have been altered by people in the past. And where they haven't been altered, the emphasis and interpretation (what becomes the titular "teachings") have. It would therefore be hubris to claim one specific set of books or one specific teaching to be so holy that it is above improvement.
E.g.: almost all religions and denominations building on the bible have agreed that slavery is not nice although it is described, condoned and even advocated in the bible. Adding a chapter with that insight into the teachings would improve on the bible. Don't you think so?

Do I think so? No, and I will tell you why….
The ancient Israelites lived at a time when slavery was everywhere; just about every nation back then had slaves, mostly POW’s from their battles. What alternative was there? Kill them? (The Israelites did a lot of that, too…) Letting them go - to return or join another clan - would not be wise, either; that would just mean the Israelites would have to face those individuals in war, again.

i think, though, that most slaves the Israelites had, were passive, like the Gibeonites in Joshua 9 …
Even though they lied, Jehovah let them live. Due to recognizing who the real God was.

IMO, the best thing to do was to regulate it; imagine if it wasn’t: there would be no limits, and cruelty would reign.
The laws on slavery the Israelites had, were the most humane for their time….

And, in every event recorded wherein God interacts with His people and their enemies, we see His fervent desire to protect His people, mostly on behalf of them being the ancestral line that would produce the Messiah. Ultimately benefiting all mankind.

It should be noted, too, that death results in nothing more than “R.I.P.”.
(Interesting that most religious people say that, but I guess they don’t believe it, with their doctrines of living in “Hell” or “Heaven”. The Bible doesn’t teach an immediate afterlife.)


Back to slavery again:
In the Greek Scriptures (NT), most of the counsel given to Christian “masters” and “slaves” can easily apply to employer/employee relationships.

IMO.

Good night, cousin.

 

[Heyo]

Do I think so? No, and I will tell you why….

Maybe you thought you did but in fact, that explanation did nothing like that. You explained why the slavery laws of the Israelites were humane for their time but you didn't explain why Christians shouldn't teach that they are not humane in our time. Why not declare that the UN Charter of Human Rights is the most humane of our time? Why not add commentary to the bible with the same authority as the one those texts selected in AD 325 by a congregation of bishops has? Why not remove parts from the bible we now know to be forgeries and political agenda (which wasn't known in 325)?

 

[setarcos]

The point was "what makes the prophets one believes in more valid than anyone else who has claimed to be a prophet?"

I know what your point was. Your not the first to ask. You won't be the last. My point was that in order to answer that question for you, you need to have an established framework by which you may judge that answer valid or invalid. So from what frame of reference do you approach these things with?

 

[setarcos]

The original authors left us books with demonstrably wrong information in them

That is a point in contention. What is one demonstration for instance?

My own thoughts come from my brain.

So what initiates your thoughts before you are aware of them? In other words if it is something you are not aware of then are they really your own thoughts or the thoughts of whatever originally initiated them into your awareness?

 

[Father Heathen]

I know what your point was. Your not the first to ask. You won't be the last. My point was that in order to answer that question for you, you need to have an established framework by which you may judge that answer valid or invalid. So from what frame of reference do you approach these things with?

It's circular logic if the claim is "this religion's prophet is authentic because the prophet's religion says he is."