Who would you listen to most?

[Twilight Hue]

I'd just have a conversation with myself.

I can't think of a better listener.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

If I wanted to know about religion I'd ask the scholar since most likely he wouldn't have bias when talking about a given religion. All religious have bias since their life is defined by their religion they can't help be such.

I'd talk to a practitioner if I knew our conversations would be insightful and wise enough to find insight in people who disagree with him or her.

I like @SalixIncendium response in #5. I tend to like talking about each other's spiritual experiences and if the other is interested in my views as I theirs that's attractive and makes me want to know more.

The scholar can tell you when and where jesus was born and the begining of christianity. The religious can tell me his relationship with Christ and when he came to christianity. I find talking to the former easier but, if the latter has more humbleness and openness I get more insight from the latter.

 

[ChristineM]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

Both then decide the merits of their views depending on the situation.

Chances are both will not be relevant for my needs but you never know

 

[Fool]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

i listen to the still small voice in the silence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

The scholar. He'ld have more objective information.


Although it depends on what the point of the conversation is. But assuming it is merely about learning about the religion (what it says, its history, etc): no doubt, the scholar.

 

[Eddi]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

That would depend on the scholar and the practitioner and also the extent of my knowledge

 

[loverofhumanity]

What resources would you be researching and investigating?

The Quran itself, as it was historically closest in time to the events which took place and more importantly, it is the Word of God, not man.

 

[sun rise]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

It depends what my question is. Sometimes I'm interested in history and sometimes in what someone is going through.

But most of all, I'd listen to neither but to one who has attained the goal be that one Pir, satguru, perfected saint like St. Francis of Assisi or tzaddik.

Books and academics can offer an intellectual viewpoint. Practitioners can offer a viewpoint from their practice. One who has attained can offer real help by helping me clear away the cobwebs in my heart and offer guidance based on deepest understanding of my true state.

 

[firedragon]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

Both. It’s very important. Considering you have only given two options.

 

[Thief]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

Jordan Peterson

 

[Nimos]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

Depending what you are after, if you are more into the religious teachings and one thought it had a lot of meaning in one's life. I would probably prefer the one practicing the religion. But if I was interested in the history and maybe what data actually show about the religion, I would prefer the academic.

However I don't think it is particular wise to exclude anyone regardless of which view one have, because even if one is interested in the religious view and a practitioner might say a lot of useful things, one still have to be more interested in truth than simply feeling good about something.
So if the practitioner simply say things that makes one feel good about it and the religion, but one is not interested in double checking whether or not, this is actually true or in line with the religion historically, then it is of little value I would say.

Like a person saying that "Jesus is the son of the Devil" to just take it to the extreme and that for whatever reason made you feel good. Then obviously you would be fooling yourself and no real value could come from this, as it would simply be wrong in accordance with the religion.

An academics view might not be precisely what people want to hear, but for the most part, they might approach a given subject more neutral and without telling you how or what to believe, simply what the facts are and then you can use that in whatever way you like.

Again to underline it, truth need to be of higher value than anything else. That doesn't mean that one can't believe in whatever religion they do, but rather that even in that case, the truth of scriptures ought to be of higher value, than what someone think they ought to mean, especially if they contradict the scriptures.

 

[Orbit]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

For the history of a religion in social context, absolutely the scholar. For the individual experience of what it is like to be in a religion, the scholar again, because scholars interview a great many practitioners and have the benefit of reports of a wide range of beliefs and experiences.

To understand deeply one person's religious experience, I would talk to the practitioner.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To be more objective, probably both. It never hurts to listen.
But, like you, I'd listen more to the practitioner.

I've found that many so-called 'scholars' have misrepresented & twisted my religious beliefs, stemming from their own bias I guess.

Now.... @Audie , what kind of coffee do you like?
("Answer the question or face the consequences!" Cute.)
Myself, one of my favorites is Indian Malabar "Mala" Monsoon! Smoooth!
I'm gonna make me some now!

 

[metis]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

The latter, although I do believe that both may have something to offer.

BTW, I was involved in a somewhat similar discussion dealing with politics, namely should we be more willing to vote for a candidate that is very intelligent or one who may be less intelligent but is more honest?

I don't want to derail your thread, so I'll just finish off this by saying that it's the latter with me.

 

[Vinayaka]

I've found that many so-called 'scholars' have misrepresented & twisted my religious beliefs, stemming from their own bias I guess.

I concur. Scholars, without practice to support their conclusions, can get stuff horridly wrong.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Might be best to listen to both - theory and practice - if either could be relied upon to represent such (unlikely though given the multitude of different versions of belief), but also to an independent observer - as overseer.

 

[Quintessence]

Both, but if forced to choose, I would pick the practitioner each and every time. The only way to truly understand a tradition is as a cultural insider. Cultural outsiders inevitably suffer from outsider biases, whether or not it is their intent to carry these biases with them. I want to understand a culture from that culture, not as interpreted through the lens of an outsider with their own biases and possible agendas.

 

[robocop (actually)]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

I would look for a person who does both.

 

[sayak83]

When you speak with other religious people, who would you listen to more.

A scholar who only have Academic education, but does not practice the religion.

Or one who actually practice the religion daily, and study the teaching for practice in daily life?

Based on my experience of listening to both... their views are mostly complementary and insightful.

 

[syo]

The religious.