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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Thanks for that.
Ooh. Woo...
I don't believe I am on the path to "finding truth." When I hear something, or I am delivered some bit of what is perceived to be knowledge, I pursue finding out whether or not that piece of knowledge has its due course of evidence and logical/rational/real support at its base. I am in the business of finding out whether knowledge I can acquire in this world is useful and properly whole. And by "whole" I again mean that its sources have been vetted, and it withstands scrutiny and falsification. Information that does not meet sufficient criteria is either discarded, or filed for further examination as more evidence is awaited. This method of thinking helps me avoid all sorts of what you might call "sin", believe it or not. For example, "gossip" - I simply don't do it. And this is precisely because any information I hear from a source must be properly vetted before I accept it, and I will not spread any information I do not feel has properly met my standards of vetting. And so, when I am told some "juicy" bit of information about someone, that information is merely filed away, as if it were not true, to await further solidifying evidence. And that is just one, simple example.
And I cannot help but to hold the opinion that this is a very foolish perspective. To my mind, a simple question destroys this "science is a gift" idea immediately. And that is: why did God wait so very long to deliver this "gift?" It seems very much more like man stumbled upon the thing called "science" himself. That is very much what the evidence we have actually indicates. And there is no evidence you will ever find or can ever point to that will indicate that science is a gift from God. None. Not one iota. And the evidence that man stumbled onto the modes of thinking and acting that comprise "science" is all too easy to point out. Humble beginnings, needing to be spread via like-minded individuals coming together and hashing out the "rules" for this line of thinking they kept using to discover things around them. If it was a gift, then it was certainly one marked "some assembly required," no?
Then you are decidedly describing fictions and imaginings that are labeled "Truth." Because when I talk about something being "true", it is because it is something that no person (in their right mind) can deny. For instance, that gravity works upon us is true. It is as true for me as it is for you, and we share this notion, regardless whether we want to share it or not. Do you see the difference? If what you are calling "Truth" is malleable enough that anyone can decide for themselves what it is, then I honestly don't even believe it qualifies to be called "truth," does it? Look up any standard definition of the word "truth," and you will never see any mention of it being a thing "up for interpretation." Which is why I insist we are using different definitions of the word "truth," because the definition I rely on matches very well to what one could normally expect that word to mean - and yours does not.
Here another problem - "gift us all knowledge." We certainly are nowhere near having acquired "all knowledge." How long does the "unwrapping" of this gift go on, do you think? It is like a slow burn kind of gift? And you mention the "religious scriptures" being sealed and hard to understand - almost as if you believe that the acquisition of scientific knowledge of our reality is somehow tied to strange and incoherent passages within scripture that will become clear once we have enough scientific understanding. "Science" does not care about scripture. It can't, by definition. Do you understand that? This is not something up for debate - unless you are using an entirely different definition of the word "science" also. Are you?
This is not an "example," I'm afraid. This is a naked, unsupported assertion. A claim. One with no supporting evidence whatsoever. An actual example would be something that didn't make sense before we discovered something about the world, and once it was discovered, the passage became so clear as to leave NO ROOM FOR AMBIGUITY OR INTERPRETATION after that point. I know that you do not have such an example. You can't - because the texts you speak of were crafted by men, and science was utilized and solidified by men of an entirely different color. The two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and I believe it a fool's errand to attempt to force them so like the edges of puzzle pieces from two separate puzzles.
Once again, not an example. Just some words. And this quoting you are doing, when it does not, at all, actually support your case is how I can know that your understanding is definitely not something I want any part of. And I can assess further that your worldview apparently offers you no worthwhile knowledge if these are the types of things that are on the "cutting edge" of the things your religion's adherents discuss amongst themselves.
Again - the passages offer NOTHING TO PURSUE. Can you not see that? All they do is make simple claims. They offer no way to match the statements up with reality and verify their truth content. None. And so they should rightfully be ignored. They are nothing but the meanderings of some people who thought they sounded wise. There is truly nothing there - and you help to prove this to me also with your "whatever it means to you" attitude. If it can truly mean whatever it means to me - then I tell you - it means nothing, and, ironically, you MUST accept my assessment as being "the truth" for myself. You must... in accordance with your own twisted "logic."
Perhaps you should consider whether sharing unsolicited knowledge from your heart might also be called proselytizing.
It sounds like you are saying that you are theologically driven to share the unsolicited knowledge of your heart. So if you consider that whatever the driving force, when you share unsolicited information about your religious beliefs, other term that proselytizing. Coming to terms with that possibility may help you understand why you may have received warnings.
Who or what do you mean by "a 100% trustworthy source"?
Please do so.
See and review post #120.
Please do share it with us. Oops. You can't. Again.
Thanks for your post, good to see you offer some thoughts.
Now the tricky bitMaybe this is where I have to say IMHO this is the evidence first. But really it is not my opinion, as it is the evidence or it is not.
I put the evidence forward for this age. It is Baha'u'llah.
There is a post above how Baha'u'llah can be the evidence, it is about being trustworthy and truthful.
Regards Tony